rt c~ has = Os ee she ¥ “1 40 40 ie D le — xy ba See Rt lett ete ee 
Sn Mites ha es 2 + 7 neg ere * > sete are 
yas ia A ne z : i 4 ; ~ ~ om ve 
frctere sie ae See iet. i ate pe . i rt z j : } : par ete 


of 
Hanae 


tid 


ey ¥ : “ i nie ree qice P ee en ae. we ry Be 5 9 Pettey Mies +f 
Reale et sae ith paciossieie 4 sateae Sr sree 


Fae aise Does : : ; sos : rai 
% : - “ . < * * Sw vere 


pane Sy tye eel 


sr et 
arape ns ie 


3, 
iN 
i 


ed 


i 
-! 
Shag t pore sem 


vat 
, 


ifs 


a LEN a 


shatste tit 
Bai 


tor Spay 
raion aoeee ie 


teen 
aTeoeberae reece 


+ 


lly tya 


. es 
. Stabe 
bn i 


Lan 4ay7 Tehie 


ce rerors 


Faby 









\ OF PRIW 
<n "ED 


2) Re 
ociea, gens 





Division DIY... 


Section (977s 






‘A ar 
UN FEE 7 192 


if re 
} : “7 ‘i baie 
WAT 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/introductiontota00miel_ 1 


INTRODUCTION 


TO 


she, JAVED, 


& 


‘_ . 


= 
i 
xa 
ae 








INTRODUCTION 
erik Al Nw) 


Mio bORTCAL AND LIPTERARYe INTRODUCTION 

Perera eLUt ReMIGN EU bCS OF a hk LA LM UD 

TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 
OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS 


BY 


M.*MIELZINER, Pu. D., D. D. 


Late Professor of Talmud 
at the Hebrew Union College 


THIRD EDITION 
With Additional Notes by Dr. Joshua Bloch 
and Dr. Louts Finkelstein 





NEW YORK 
BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY, Inc. 
“THE JEWISH BOOK CONCERN”’ 


1925 


Copyright, 1902, by M. MIELZINER. 
Copyright, 1925, by BLocH PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. 


Printed in the United States of America. 


PREPAGE,-TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


The Talmud is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable 
literary productions of antiquity. In its twelve folio volumes 
itt embodies the mental labors of the ancient Jewish teachers 
during a period of about eight hundred years. The attention 
of these teachers was directed particularly to expounding 
and developing the religious, moral and civil law of the Bible. 
The pages of this great work are, besides, replete with 
wise observations, ethical maxims, beautiful legends and 
parables, and exegetical explanations. We _ also find in it 
valuable historical and ethnographical material, as well as 
occasional references to the various branches of ancient know- 
ledge and science. 

The Talmud is also remarkable for the powerful influence 
it exerted upon the thought and life of the Jews during the 
Middle Ages, yes, even down to quite recent times. Its 
authority was second only to that of the Bible. Although 
modern Jews have emancipated themselves more or less 
from its authority, the Talmud still remains a venerable 
literary monument of a great and important epoch in the 
development of Judaism. At the same time, it is a valuable 
source of religious and ethical doctrines as well as of scientific 
investigation. 

In our day, quite a general interest in this literary monu- 
ment of antiquity is being awakened. This increasing inter- 
est is manifested not only by the publication of numerous 
works and monographs on Talmudical topics, but also by the 


PREFACE. 


fact that several universities and colleges abroad and in this 
country have established chairs for the study of this special 
branch of literature. 

The present work which I have called ‘‘Introduction to the 
Talmud” is the result of many years’ labor and of a long experi- 
ence as professor of the Talmudical branches at the Hebrew 
Union College. It is intended to facilitate the exceedingly 
difficult study ofan intricate subject. Itis the first comprehen- 
sive work of its kind in the English language, yes, it might be 
said, in any modern language, if we except Prof. Herman L. 
Strack’s ‘‘Kinleitung in den Talmud”, a book which, though 
treating our subject with scientific exactness and impartiality, 
was not intended to cover the whole ground as is attempted m 
the present publication. 

Earlier works of this kind, from the eleventh century down 
to our time, have been written in Hebrew or rather in the Rab- 
binicalidiom, and hence are accessible to Rabbinical scholars 
only. Valuable literary material, the result of keen critical 
research into our subject, has been published by some modern 
scholars, among whom may be named the late Z. Frankel, and 
I. H. Weiss.' The results reached by these scholars have 
been duly considered in our ‘‘Historical and Literary Intro. 
duction”. 

Regarding the second and third parts of this work, 
I had to rely almost entirely on my own researches. ‘The 
only modern work on Talmudical Hermenentics is Dr. H.S8. 
Hirschfeld’s ‘‘Halachische Exegese”. But the usefulness of this 
learned work is’ greatly impaired by the fact that 


1 The literature on this subject is given further on in the chapter 
‘‘Auxiliaries to the study of the Talmud” pp. 88—85. 


PREFACE. 


the author cast it into a philosophical form to which the 
subject-matter does not readily lend itself. 

It has been my endeavor to present the methods of the Tal- 
mudical interpretation of the Bible in the proper light. The 
application of the various hermeneutical rules is illustrated by 
nuinerous examples which have been carcfully selected,and which 
will afford the student an opportunity of becoming familiar with 
some of the peculiarities of the Talmudical Law. 

Part III of this Introduction is the first attempt at present- 
ing the Methodology and Terminology of the Talmud in a 
strictly systematical way. It is, to some extent, an exposition 
of the Dialectics of the Rabbis, an analysis of their discussions 
and debates. The references and examples added to each ofthe 
technical terms and phrases show their prevalence in all sections 
ofthe Talmud. I may be pardoned in entertaining the hope that 
this portion of my work will be found a reliable guide through 
the labyrinth of Talmudical discussions. 

The appended treatise “Outlines of Talmudical Ethics” is 
essentially the contents of my paper on that subject read at the 
World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago. 

The alphabetical Register of the principal Tanaim and Amo- 
raim, the Index of technical Terms and Phrases, and the “Key 
to the Abbreviations used in the Talmud and its commentaries” 
will, I hope, add to the usefulness of this work. 


CINCINNATI, Marcu, 1894, 
THE AUTHOR. 


Preface to the Second Edition. 





Encouraged by the very favorable reception given to the 
first edition of this Introduction to the Talmud, I have care- 
fully revised the work for the present new edition. The 
numerous typographical errors which had escaped the atten- 
tion of the proofreader of the former edition have been cor- 
rected, and several pages of new matter have been appended 
which supplement the Bibliography of modern works and 
pamphlets on Talmudic Subjects. ; 


CINCINNATI, O., NOVEMBER, 1902. 


CHE AUTHOR. 


PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION 


This edition —the third —of Mielziner’s Introduction 
to the Talmud, may be briefly described as a reprint of 
the work originally published in 1894, with a section 
of additional Notes. The work itself is essentially an 
Introduction, in the elementary sense, intended for readers 
who desire to acquaint themselves with the “sea of the 
Talmud.” It is, therefore, obvious that within the compass 
of a modest volume such as the present, nothing more than 
brief treatment is possible. The fact that the work is 
regarded as “indispensable to a proper understanding of 
Talmudical discussions’* explains sufficiently its popu- 
lasityes teas) boped= that this: \new,. enlarged “and = re- 
vised edition will stimulate a wider interest in the 
study of the vast literature of the Talmud. In the 
bibliographical material, only the more important works 
are indicated. No attempt is made to give exhaustive 
lists of works on the many subjects referred to. The 
Additional Notes at the end of the book is the joint work 
of Dr. Joshua Bloch and Dr. Louis Finkelstein and, it is 
believed, they embody a fairly good summary of the results 
of modern research in Talmudic lore since the publication 
of the second edition of this work in 1903. The Index is the 
work of Morton M. Berman, a student of the Jewish Insti- 
tute of Religion, New York. In the preparation of these 
notes additional help was received from Dr. Jacob Z. Lau- 
terbach, Professor Talmud, Hebrew Union College. 


ae Ba 
New York, December, 1924. 


*C. Levias, A Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained in the 
Babylonian Talmud. Cincinnati, 1900, p. 2. 





TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PART I 


HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION 


THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS.......... 
CHAPTER 


ih: 


1B. 


Li: 


ive 


WITT 


FEI Feared GR LANGA cal Semen terrae ea Sn ac canis Sen eteeard oan Sheree 
Its Origin, Compilation and Division. Order of Suc- 
cession, Names and General Contents of its 63 Tracts. 
Language of the Mishna. 


WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA.............. 
Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra, Siphre; Fragmentary 
Baraithoth. 


Popes UL HORURI ES. O EAH WeVLS BON A) oo ce) one 
The Sopherim, the “Zugoth,”’ the Tanaim. The six 
Generations of the latter. Characteristics and Bio- 
graphical Sketches of the principal Tanaim. 


io beb XPOUNDERSZOF THE MISHNAS ew... 


Palestinian and Babylonian Amoraim. Their Division 
into Generations. Biographical Sketches of the princi- 
pal Amoraim. 


ie ee ee Gy VA A cers acces ca ett te lee oh eiesakey ee oii ah greta en ducks 


Classification of its Contents into Halacha and Agada. 
Compilation of the Palestinian and the Babylonian 


PAGE 


17 


22 


40 


56 


Gemara. The two Gemaras compared with each other. 


. APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD.. 
COMMENTARIES ON (THE TAUCMUDex (0°). 005. 


A. On the Babylonian Talmud. B. Exclusively on the 
Mishna. C. On the Palestinian Talmud. 


Tiel WL HL OaeAN Die CO.DLMIGA TIONS (ue iver 5c creretene 
A. Compendiums of the Talmud, by Alfasi and by Asher 
b. Jechiel. B. The Codes, by Maimonides, by Moses of 
Coucy, by Jacob b. Asher and by Joseph Karo. C. Col- 
lections of the Agadic Portions of the Talmud. 


X1 ! 


63 
65 


72 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 


IX. MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS........ 


X. AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD 
A. Lexicons. B. Grammars. C. Chrestomathies. D. 
Introductory Works. a. Older Works. 6. Modern 
Works in Hebrew. c. Works and Articles in Modern 
Languages. d. Historical Works. e. Encyclopedical 
Works. f. Some Other Books of Reference. 

AI. TRANSLATIONS OF sTHHeLALM UD... eee 
A. The Mishna. B. The Babylonian. C. The Pales- 
tinian Talmud. 

XITS’ BIBGIOGRAP Hiv 5 ees ie ee et ore 
Modern Works and Monographs on Talmudical Sub- 
jects. 

XIII. 1. OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 


200 WHY STUD Yet Feet AdgM UD ace cen 


PART II 


LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 


1. INTRODUCTION? Perici eis ee eee 
Definition. Plain and Artificial Interpretation. Legal 
and Homiletical Interpretation. 

2. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL IN- 

TERPRETATION eters ore icles tan cee ae es 


Hillel’s Seven Hermeneutic Rules. A New Method, by 
Nahum. Development of this Method, by R. Akiba. 
The Thirteen Rules of R. Ishmael. Literature. 


EXPOSITION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
I. THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR... 


II. THE ANALOGY. 
A. Gezera-Shava sei fee ee ee 
B. Heckésh) 3.8.8225 8 he Gee oe en ee a 


III. GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWG........... 
IV. THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR.......... 


V. MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULE OF GENERAL 
AN DSAPARTICUGA Rite cit c mare cc ca nee ee 


88 


93 


103 
108 


117 


120 


169 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 


VI. 1. EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT......... 


2. RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING PAS- 
Sr Gr Seater in eee eet inks sce elole tes a ata ola oi sue isle a) sdsieteieae«.¢ 


REPLI L LLG) NA lated Colt laisens croton soto ererw ene cet ngste tess erelein'e 


A. Juxtaposition. B. Restrictions in the Application of 
Analogy. C. Limited or Unlimited Effect of an Anal- 
ogy. D. Refutation and Reinstatement of Hermeneutic 
Arguments. E. The Theory of Extension and Limita- 
tion. F. “Mikra” or “Masora.” Closing Remark. 


BART Lt 


TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND 


METHODOLOGY 
Pere PAU LC) Ler Yuu eaten tree Sete ee eretem yr Moco sliatctee << S12 So cte eet a teta n® 


I. TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE STRUC- 
TURE OrcAUMISHNA PARAGRAPH. oc. 3.0... 5. 


II. MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA 


jag Rae NE DN a RD an coe le oy Cen Per ec ag Shar i 


Ill. THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA....... 
IV. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN 


PRES ON Wi ee eh ot Sitar en oS or Oye Ge aan Ot ae 2 


V. QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS... 


VI. DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CONCERNING 
IVE TS WET AMR Greer tte or. oie ec tteeg atist RET) osc uh wk sieP sachet eo 9 


ViletLReEATMENT,OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 2... ceo... 
VIII. TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIF- 


eGR GN ClosG) he O PIN TON foo ces tirrs ce tettinreye cre fay ene es 2 


IX. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS.......... 
Classification: 1. Questions of Investigation. 2. Ques- 
tions of Astonishment. 3. Questions of Objection. 
Some Special Kinds of Objection. The Dilemma. The 


Rejoinder. 4. Questions of Problem and Their Solution. 


BRA Gre Ea ND LOIN tere: cgay gee) tie Sogresc a ear a ettioiotu ies ote oso.» 


1. Terms and Phrases Introducing an Argument. 2. 
Classification of Arguments: a. Argument From Com- 
mon Sense. b. Argument From Authority. c. Argu- 
ment From Construction. d. Argument From Analogy. 
e. Argument a fortiori. 3. Indirect Argumentation. 4. 
Direct and Indirect Arguments Combined. 


xlil 


TABLE OF CONTENTS ¢ 


CHAPTER PAGE 
ALEREEUTATIONS rie tess eterna deh We tke ae ee ee 254 


Definition and Terms. a. The Refutation of a Propo- 
sition. 6. Procedure of Refuting the Various Kinds of 
Arguments. 


ALL oP HE ADT BAC cect ie ae ees ents ee eet cee Tae 261 


Definition and Terms. The Principal Debaters. Illus- 
tration of a Debate. Anonymous Discussions and 


Debates. 
PART IV 

OUTLINES OF “TAUMUDIGATAMILH IGS 3s. eee 267 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC............. 281 
IN DEXSTO"SUBJECTS*“AN DEN AME Serpe oe 4 eee 319 
SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REF- 

HRENGES Fe. Petey se oe serene te, ee ee eee 375 
INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES........ 385 
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD 

AND COMMENTARIES @:. 42-25 0- 6 2) te eee eee 389 


Xiv 


INTRODUCTION 


AHO 
THE TALMUD 
PART I 


HISTORICALTAND LIPERARY 
INTRODUCTION 





THE TALMUD AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS. 
Sasa 


The Talmud is the work which embodies the mental labors 
of the ancient Jewish teachers during a period of about eight 
hundred years (from about 300 before, to 500 after, the Christian 
era) in expounding and developing the civil and religiouslaw 
of the Bible. Besides, it contains the theosophical views, ethical 
maxims and exegetical remarks of those teachers; it is inter- 
woven with many valuable historical and ethnographical records 
and occasional references to the different branches of ancient 
knowledge and sciences. 

The Talmud consists of two distinct works, the dZzshna, as 
the text, and the Gemara as a voluminous collection of com- 
mentaries and discussions on that text. 

The appellation Talmud, meaning the Study, properly refers 
to the Gemara only, but according to a literary usage establish- 
ed in later times, the name Talmud is applied also to the 
combined work of Mishna and Gemara.’ 


We have two compilations of the Gemara, different from 
each other in language as well as in contents. One originated 
in the Palestinian, and the other in the Babylonian schools. 
The latter is called %5335 t45n the Babylonian Talmud, and the 
former sH5yyq9 195m the Palestinian Talmud. The Mishna 
text in both of them is the same, though occasionally offering 
slight variations. 


1 Asa technical term the word 3195p was applied by the ancient 
teachers to signify the method of deducing a law from the words of 
Scripture; compare the phrase spi5 syp5n, Maccoth I, 7, a..o. Sub- 
scquently the word was applied to the discussions of the teachers on 
the Mishna; compare Sanhedrin 24a: b53 Sy =ay5n. After the Mishna 
and Gemara had been combined in one work, it became customary 
to use the word as an appellation of the whole work. 


CHAPTER I. 
THE MISHNA. 


Its ORIGIN, COMPILATION AND NAME. 


§ 2. 

The Mishna is the authorized codification of the oral or un- 
written law which, on the basis of the written law contained in 
the Pentateuch, developed during the second Temple and down 
to the end of the second century of the common era. | 

The oral law consisted partly of legal traditions and usages 
which had been handed down from time immemorial; partly of 
enactments (ODI Ni Nniupn) of the men of the Great 
Synod or the Sopherim, and subsequently of the Sanhedrin; and 
partly of the laws which proceeded from the discussions and de- 
cisions of the teachers, the Tanaim, in the Palestinian academies, 
established for the purpose of cultivating and transmitting that 
law. Its transmission was, for many centuries, confined to 
verbal communication, as it was considered a religious offence 
to reduce the tradition to writing. 

The cultivation of that law consisted mainly in the endeavor 
to found its provisions on a biblical basis and support, and to 
deduce therefrom new provisions for cases not yet provided 
for. This endeavor gave rise to discussions and a frequent con- 
flict of opinions. Also the reports of these conflicting opinions 
were conscientiously preserved in the memory of subsequent 
teachers. Thus, in the course of time, the subject matter of the 
oral law accumulated to an immense bulk which, not yet in any 
way systematized, became almost too heavy to be preserved 
merely by the power of memory. 

The first attempt towards bringing some order and system 
into this chaotic mass of traditions was made by Hillel, president 
of the Sanhedrin in the time of Herod, by arranging it into six 
principal divisions. His attempt was later resumed by the 

1 In order to assist their memory, however, some teachers had 
private scrolls on which they for their own use entered single theses” 


of the tr ditional law. Such a scroll was called op ND n> ‘Secret’ 
Scroll.” i! 


THE MISHNA. 5 


celebrated R. Akiba who subdivided the subject matter belonging 
to each of thesix divisions, into homogeneous parts. Within 
each part again he grouped the single laws according to their 
inter-connection and according to certain mnemonical consider- 
ations. The work of R. Akiba was continued by his distinguish- 
ed disciple R. Meir who completed the collection and improved 
its formal arrangement. But neither this compilation of R. 
Meir nor similar works of his colleagues succeeded in command- 
ing general recognition, asevery teacher in the various academies 
preferred to transmit and expound the accumulated material of 
the law according to a method and arrangement of his own. 


Finally R. Jehuda Hanasi, flourishing towards the end of 
the second century, undertook the great. task of establishing a 
general code of the oral law. By virtue of his eminent learning, 
his dignity as Patriarch and as head of a celebrated academy, 
he succeeded in accomplishing this task. Taking the unfinished 
work of R. Akiba and R. Meir as basis, and retaining, in gen- 
eral, its division and arrangement, he examined and sifted the 
whole material of the oral law, and completed it by adding the 
decisions which his academy gave concerning many doubtful 
cases. Unanimously adopted opinions he recorded without the 
names of their authors or transmitters, but where a divergence 
of opinions appeared, the individual opinion is given in the 
name of its author, together with the decision of the prevailing 
majority, or side by side with that ofits opponent, and sometimes 
even with the addition of short arguments pro and con. 


Like the former compilations of the oral law, this work of 
R. Jehuda was called AM/shna. In order to distinguish it from 
that of R. Akiba and R. Meir it was originally designated the 
Mishna of R. Jehuda, but after having been generally accepted 
as the exclusively authorized code of the traditional law, it bears 
the simple name A/ishna without any further modification.’ 


1 Whether R. Jehuda Hanasi actually committed his Mishna to 
writing or not, is a question concerning which the scholars of ancient 
as well as of modern times express different opinions. In accordance 
with the principle mentioned in Talm. Gittin 60b and Temura 14b 
in the name of some teachers, that the oral law ought not to be 


6 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


In later years of his life, R. Jehuda revised his work, and 
made several changes. Some additions were made by his dis- 
ciples.? 

Concerning the etymology and signification of the word 
naw there is a difference of opinion. Some regard it as a 


esnniranting form of the Hebrew word ; maw (analogous to the double 
form nape and Map); meaning ¢he NeLOHT in rank, hence a signi- 


fication of the work containing the oral law which takes the 
second rank compared with the biblical law; whichis’ considered 
the first. In this sense the word is taken not only by the fathers 
of the Church who rendered it by the term devrépwors, but also by 
many modern scholars. Others derive it from the verb FAiw Zo 
repeat, Which in new Hebrew, like the Aramaic 3M received 


written down 3733 mond NWI ANN US 7D Syoy D125 it is maintained 
by Sherira Gaon (according to one version in his Iggereth), by Rashiin 
his commentary on B. Metzia 33 a and Erubin 62b, by Tosaphoth on 
Megilla 32 a, and by some other authorities of the Middle Ages that R. 
Jehuda compiled his great Mishna work in his mind without writing 
it down, and that it was transmitted only orally during many gener 
ations, until circumstances in the sixth century made it neccessary to 
commit it to writing. This view is accepted and defended even by 
some modern scholars, as Luzzatto, Rapaport, Jost, Graetz, Leopold 
Loew, and others. 

More plausible is the opposite opinion holding that R. Jehuda 
Hanasi wrote out the Mishna in full, This opinion is shared in the 
Middle Ages by Samuel Hanagid, R. Nissim, R. Abraham b. David, 
Maimonides, and in modern times by Geiger, Frankel, Lebrecht, I. H. 
Weiss, and others, 

The arguments in favor of the former opinion are found in 
Graetz’ Geschichte der Juden IV, second edition, p. 494, and in 
Leopold Loew’s Graphische Requisiten II, pp. 112-1382; the contrary 
arguments in Frankel’s Darke Hamischna p. 211: Weiss’ Dor Dor III, 
244-248. Compare also Hamburger’s Real-Encycl. II, p. 796, and 8. 
Adler’s Kobetz al Yad, p. 54. 

1 Clear evidences of such additions by later hands are found in the 
> ast Mishna of Sota, where the death of Rabbi ls mentioned, and in 
the last Mishna of Uk’tzin, where mention is made of R. Joshua b. 
Levi who flourished after Rabbi. As later additions and interpolations 
must also such passages as 7))}8 °37 or 949.17 be regarded which oc- 
casionally occur in the context of the Mishna, e. g. Nazir I, 4; IV, 
5; Maccoth I, 8. 


THE MISHNA. 7 


the meaning, 70 relate, to teach, to transmit orally. Mishna then 
means the oral teaching, the instruction in the traditional law, in 
contradistinction to N71 the reading in the written law of the 


Bible. 


THE DIVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
§ 3. 


The Mishna is divided into six main sections, termed Seda- 
rim (“‘Orders” or ‘‘Series”):, A mnemonical sign of the sequence 
of these sections are the words mp3 jor (time he took), formed 
by the initials of their names. 

I. Zeraim pryny Seeds or productions of the land. This 
section embraces the ritual laws concerning the cultivation of 
the soil and its products. It is introduced by a treatise on 
prayer and benedictions. 

Il. Moed 3119 Festival, treats of the laws concerning the 
Sabbath and all festivals. 

Ill. Mashim oxy3 Women, regulations concerning marriage 
and divorce. 

IV. Weztkin pps Damages,embracing a great part of the 
civil and criminal law. 

V. Kodashim owt Sacred things, treats of the sacrificial 
laws and the temple service. — 

VI. Zeharoth pny Purification, the laws concerning the 
clean and unclean. 

Each Seder (section) is subdivided into Masechtoth or treat- 
ises, of which each bears a name indicating its general con- 
tents ?. 

The Mishna contains in all sixty three Masechtoth. Each 
Masechta is again subdivided into Chapéers, called Perakim, and 
each Perek into paragraphs, of which each is termed AZzshna or 


1 On account of this division of the Mishna into six series the whole 
Tilmud is signified by the technical term Dw which is an abbreviation 
of the words p°94D rmyry. 

* The word 35% or NNIDyH is probably derived from 4D) to 
weave, and means then a web, just as in Latin textus from texere, 
means a web, and thena composition of words and sentences. 


8 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Halacha. The latter term for a single paragraph is especially 
used in the Palestinian Talmud. 


ORDER OF SUCCESSION, NAMES AND GENERAL CONTENTS OF 
THE MASECHTOTH. 


§ 4, 


Concerning the order in which the Masechtoth belonging to 
every section follow after each other, some difference appears 
between the separate Mishna edition (called Mishnayoth my 3y)’ 
and the arrangement of the Masechtoth as generally adopted in 
the editions of the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmud. 
This is especially the case in the Sedarim II—VI, while in Seder 
I the order of succession is the same in all editions. 


‘ Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
endeavors to find some reasons for the order of succession of the 
Masechtoth ineach Seder. But his reasons are often rather forced. R. 
Sherira Gaon, in his celebrated epistle holds that the compiler of the 
Mishna did not have the intention to arrange the Masechtoth according 
to a strictly systematical order. This opinion is also expressed in the 
Gemara B, Kamma 102 a; Aboda Zara 7a : n\naDY NI saw mle isc: 
though, on the other hand, the Gemara sometimes refers to a close 
connection of one Masechta with the preceding one, as in the beginn- 
ing of Masecheth Sota: AMD NIN DD mp WII NIN 7139; comp. 
also the beginning of Mas. Shebuoth and of Taanith. 

Geiger (Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift II, p. 487 ss.) shows that in 
the separate Mishna edition, at least in the Sedarim II—VI, the Ma- 
sechtoth are simply arranged according to the number of Perakim of 
which they consist, so that the Masechtoth having the greater number 
stand first and are gradually followed by those having a lesser number 
of Perakim, Where the arrangement seemingly deviates from this 
rule, we can easily account for the deviation. Thus the three Babas, 
each having ten Perakim, are placed first in Seder Nezikin, because be- 
longing together and having in all thirty Perakim. They are followed 
by Sanhedrin having eleven Perakim, and then by Maccoth which 
though consisting only of three Perakim isin its contents a continua- 
tion of the subject treated in Sanhedrin, forming with it fourteen Pe- 
rakim, 


THE MISHNA. 9 


The following is a full list of the Masechtoth belonging to 
each Seder and the number of their Perakim; besides the order 
of their succession in the separate Mishna edition as well as in 
the two compilations of the Talmud. 

The letter G added to the number of the order of succession 
in this list indicates that there is Gemara to that Masechta in 
either of the two Talmud compilations. 


I. SEDER ZERAIM, containing eleven Masechtoth. 


Order of Succession in the 
Separate TALMUD 
Ce ake Babli, Jerushalmi. euchee 

1 1.G. 1.G. Berachoth, n\373, Benedictions or Prayers, 9 
treats of liturgical rules. 

2 2 2.G. Peah, ANXb, Corner, treats of the cornersand 8 
gleanings of the field, the forgotten sheaves, 
the olives and grapes to be left to the poor, 
according to Levit. XIX 9.10 and Deut. XXIV 
19 eels 

3 3 8.G. Demai, x94, The Uncertain, treats of corn 7 
bought from persons suspected of not havy- 
ing-given thereof the tithes. 

4 4 -4.G. Khilayim,owds, Mixtures, treats of the pro- 9 
hibited mixtures in plants, animals and gar- 
ments, according to Levit. XIX, 19; Deutr. 
XXII, 9 11. 

5 ay 5.G. Shebiith, myaw, The Sabbatical year, ac- 10 
cording to Ex, XXIII, 11; Lev. XXV, 2-7; 
Deutr. XV, 1-11. 


6 6 6.G. Therumoth, non, The Heave offeringsfor 11: 
the priests, according to Numb, XVIII, 12. 
7 tg 7.G. Maaseroth, nowy, The Tithes, tobe given 5 


to the Levites, according to Lev. XXVII, 
80-338; Num. XVIII, 21-24. 


8 8 8.G. Maaser Sheni, *}w awyy, The second Tithe, 6 
| according to Deut. XIV, 22-26. 
9 9 9.G. Challa, 75m, The Dough, the portion tobe 4 


given thereof to the Priests, according to 
Num. XV, 20. 21. 
10 10 10.G. Oria, aby, The Uncircumcised, treats of 3 
the fruits of a tree during the first four 
years after its planting, according to Lev. 
XIX, 23-25. 


LQ HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


Order of Succession in the 


Separate 
Mishna Ae Ne Imi Number 
edition, Babli. Jerushalmi. of Perakim 


Pit aelt 11.G. Biccurim, p»jo3, The First fruits to be 38 
brought to the Temple, accordIng to Deut. 
MO OME GEE 


II. SEDER MOED, containing twelve Masechtoth. 


1 1G. 1.G. Sabbath, nay, treats of the labors prohibit- 24 

ed on that day. 

2 2.G. 2.G. EHrubin, ya), Combinations. This Masechta 10 
being a continuation of the preceding, treats 
especially of imaginary combinations of loc- 
alities by which to extend the Sabbath 
boundary. 

3.G. Pesachim, p'nps5, treats of the laws relating 10 
to the feast of Passover and the paschal lamb. 

4 ied 5.G. Shekalim, opy, treats of the half Shekel 8 
which, according to Ex. XXX, 12-16, every 
Israelite had to pay as a temple tax. 
5 8.G. 4G. Yoma, xp, the Day, i.e. the day of At- 8 
onement, according to Lev. XVI, 3-34. 
6 9.G.  6.G. Suceah, 710, treats of the lawsconcerning 8 
the feast of Tabernacles, Lev. X XIII, 34736. 
vf 4.G. 8.G. Betza mya or Yom tov 2) pry, treats of the 5§ 
kinds of work which, according to Ex. XII, 
16, were prohibited or permitted on the fes- 
tivals. The name Betza (the egg) is taken 
from the first word in that Masechta. 
8 %7.G. 7G. Rosh Hashana, 72wn wer, Beginning of the 4 
year, treats of the feast of New Year. 
9. 2 10;G3 9.G. Taanith, n3yn, on the public fasts. 
10 12.G.° 10.G.. . Megilla, abv, the Scroll, treats of the read- 4 
ing of the book of Esther on the feast of 
Purim. 
11 0.G.  12.G. Moed Katon, OD I, Minor feast, treatsof 3 


laws relating to tue days intervening be- 
tween the first and last days of Pesach and 
Succoth. 


12 6.G. 11.G. Chagiga, 73°35, Feast offering, treats of the 8 
private offerings on the three feasts of pil- 
grimage, according to Deut. XVI, 16, 17. 


III. Stper Nasum™, containing seven Masechtoth. 


1 1G. 1.G.  Yebamoth, nyo‘, Sisters-in-Law, treats of 16 


eee marriage, according to Deut. XXV, 
-10. 


Se) 
ow 
2 


ns 


THE MISHNA. | 1] 


Order of Succession in the 


Separate 
Mishna Rene ; Number 
edition, Babli. Jerushalmi. bay sree hs 


2 2.G. 3.G. Khethuboth, n\a\n3, Marriage deeds, treats 138 
of dower and marriage settlements. 

3 5.G. 4.G. Nedarim, p73, Vows, treats of vows and 11 
their annulment, with reference to Num. 

XXX, 3-16. 

4 6.G. 6.G. Nazir, 733, the Nazarite, treats of the laws 9 
concerning him, according to Num. VI, 2-21. 

5 7.G. 2G. Sota,7Ayi\D, on the woman suspected of adult- 9 
ery, according to Num. V, 12-31. 

6 4.G. 5.G. Gittin, po, on Divorces, based on Deut. 9 
XOX Vein. 

7 3.G. 7G, Kiddushin, ywytp, on Betrothals. 4 


ITV. SepDER NEZIKIN, containing ten Masechtoth. 


1 1G. 1.G. Baba Kama, xp vai, First Gate, treats of 10 
Damages and Injuries, and their remedies, 
with reference to Ex. XXI, 28-37; XXTJJ, 
1-8, 

2 9G. 2.G. Baba Metzia, xsyyo von, Middle Gate, 10 

. treats of laws concerning found property 
(Deut. XXII, 1-4), concerning trust (Ex. 
XXII, 6-14), concerning buying and selling 
(Lev. XXV, 14), lending (Ex. XXII, 24-26; 
Lev. XXV, 35-37) and concerning hiring 
and renting. 

3 3.G. 3.G. Baba Bathra, 83n3 833, Last Gate, treats 10 
of laws concerning real estate and com- 
merce, mostly based on the traditional law; 
besides of the laws concerning hereditary 
succession, based on Num. XX VII, 7-11. 

4 5.G. 4.G. Sanhedrin, prtiD, treats of the courts and 11 
their proceed ngs, and of the punishment 
of capital crimes. 

5d 7.G. 5.G. Maccoth, nib», Stripes, treats of false wit- 3 
nesses and their punishment (Deut. XIX, 
16-19); of the cities of refuge (Num. XXXV, 
10-32; Deut. XIX, 1-18) and of crimes pun- 
ished by stripes (Deut. XXV, 1-3. 

6 6.G. 6.G. Shebuoth, n\yisw, Oaths, treats of the differ- 8 
ent kinds of oaths, those made in private 
life as well as those administered in court, 
Lev. V, 4. 5. 21. 22; Ex, XXIT, 6-10. 


12 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Order of Succession in the 
Separate TALMUD 
Ee Babl . Jerushalmi. eC OS ES 

7 8 Wanting Eduyoth, nysy, Testimonies, containsacol- 8 
lection of traditional laws and decisions 
gathered from the testimonies of disting- 
uished teachers, 

8 4.G. 7G. Aboda Zara, A} ANY, Idolatry, treats of 5 
laws concerning idols and the relation to 
the worshipers thereof, 

9 10 Wanting Aboth, n\ax, Fathers or Sentences of the 5 
Fathers (the principal teachers), contains 
ethical maxims of the Mishna teachers. 

10 9.G. 8.G. Horayoth, ny yn, Decisions, treats of the 38 
consequences of acting according to errone- 
ous decisions rendered by areligious author- 
ity, with reference to Ley. chapters IV and V. 


V. SEDER KODASHIM, containing eleven Masechtoth. 


1 1.G. Zebachim, p'nat, Sacrifices, treats of the 14 
animal sacrifices and the mode of their of- 
fering,with reference to the first chapters of 
Leviticus. 

9 2G. 0 Menachoth, nino, Meat-offering, treats of 13 
meat-c nd drink offerings, with reference to 

7, Lev. ch. IT 


3 4.G. Cholin, (or Chullin) nbyn, Profane things, 12 
_ treats of the traditional manner of slaught- 
ering animals for ordinary use; besides of 
= the dietary laws. 
4 3.G. Bechoroth, ny7\53, The first born, treats of 9 
7, the laws concerning the first born of man 


and animals, according to Ex. VIII, 12.13 
< and Num. XVIII, 15-17. 
5 5.G. Arachin, >5y, Estimations, treats of the 9 
= mode in which persons or things dedicated 
to the Lord by a vow are legally appraised 
in order to be redeemed for ordinary use, 
according to Lev. XX VII, 2-27. 
6 6.G. Themura, mA7\on, Exchange, treats of the 7 
laws concerning sanctified things having 
been exchanged, according to Lev. XXVII, 
10-27. 
v 7.G. Kherithoth, nin5, Excisions, treats of the 6 
sins subject to the punishment of excision, 
and their expiation by sacrifices. 


Order of Succession in the 


TALMUD 
edition. Babli. Jerushalmi. 


Separate 
Mishna 
8 8.G. 
9 -10.G 
1077 11. 
11 9. 


VI. SEDER TEHAROTH, containing twelve Masechtoth. 


2. 


ieee 


NG 


Vee ee Nig Lae 


1G 


THE MISHNA. 


13 


Nuinbcr 
of Perakim 


Me-ila, abyn, Trespass (Sacrilege), treats of 
the sins of violating or profaning sacred 
things, according to Lev. V, 15. 16. 
Thamid, 1"pn, The Daily Sacrifice, describes 
the Temple service connected with the daily 
morning and evening offering, according to 
Ex. XXIX, 38-41; Num. XXVIII, 2-8. 
Middoth, n\7D, Measurements, contains the 
measurements and description of the 
Temple, its courts, gates and halls, also de- 
scription of the service of the priestly guards 
in the Temple. 

Kinnim, pp, The bird’s nests, treats of 
the sacrifices consisting of fowls, the offer- 
ing of the poor, according to Lev. I, 14; V, 
Tek LISS, 


Khelim, ps, Vessels, treats of the con- 
ditions under which domestic utensils, gar- 
ments etc. receive ritual uncleanness, ac- 
cording to Lev. XI, 33-35. 

Ohaloth, mn, Tents, treats of tents and 
houses conveying the ritual uncleanness of 
a dead body, according to Num. XIX, 14.15. 
Nega-im, p yi, Leprosy, treats of the laws 
relating to leprosy of men, garments and 
dwellings, according to Lev. XIII and XIV. 
Parah, 775, The Heifer, treats of the laws 
concerning the red heifer and the use of its 
ashes for the purification of the unclean, 
according to Num. XIX. 

Teharoth, ny, Purifications. The word 
is here used euphemistically, as the Masech- 
ta treats of some lesser degrees of unclean- 
ness lasting only till sunset; e. g., Lev. XI, 
24-28. 

Mikvaoth, niwipo, Wells, treats of the con- 
ditions under which wells and reservoirs 
are fit to be used for ritual purifications. 
Nidda, 773), The Menstruous, treats of the 
legal uncleanness arising from certain con- 
ditions in women, according to Lev. XV, 


6 


3 


30 


18 


14 


10 


10 


10 


14 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


Order of Succession in the 


Separate TALMUD 
ETE Babli. Jerushalmi. ees 
19-31 and XII, 2-8. 
& ' 8. Mach-shirin, "wd, Preparations, treatsof 6 
liquids that, according to Lev. XI, 34. 38, 
o prepare and -dispose seeds and fruits to re- 
ceive ritual uncleanness. 
9 9. z, Zabim, ora}, Persons suffering of running 5 
issues, treats of the uncleanness arising 
= from such secretions, according to Lev. XV, 
2-18. 
Ome U: ef Tebul Yom, pv bon, Immersed at daytime, 4 
treats of the state of him who at day time 
Z immersed for his purification, whiie his per- 
fect cleanness according to the law is not 
> acquired before the setting of the sun. 
sme Sie Yadayim, ovr, Hands, treats of the ritual 4 
> uncleanness of hands, according to the trad- 


itional law, and of their purification. 

12 Uk-tzin, pypiy, Stalks of Fruit, treats of 3 
staiks and shells of fruit in regard to con- 
veying ritual uncleanness. 

Remark 1. In connection with the main subject treatea 
in each Masechta and generally indicated in its name, occasion- 
ally other more or less congenial subjects are treated. Thus, 
for instance, the last Perakim of Masecheth Megilla are devoted 
to laws cnncerning the sanctity of synagogues and the reading 
of Scriptures at the public service. In the first Perek of Kid- 
dushin, after having set forth the different modes of contracting 
marriage, rules are incidently laid down concerning the legal 
modes of acquiring differentkinds of property, etc. 

Remark 2. The Perakim belonging to each Masechta 
are designated in the separate Mishna edition simply by the 
letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Talmud edition by 
ordinal numbers as well as by a certain name taken from the first 
word or words with which that Perek begins. ‘Thus the first 
Perek of Berachoth is designated in the separate Mishna edition 
by 'S pAb and in the Talmud edition by TWN PID, ND. In 
earlier rabbinical literature references to a certain Perek ofthe 
Mishna are generally made by giving only the name of that 
Perek without stating the Masechta to whieh it belongs, as 


THE MISHNA. 15 


TPbdT pAb referring to the third Perek of Baba Metzia. An 
alphabetical list of the names of all Parakim with the indication 
of the Masechtoth to which they belong is found in the appendix 
to Masecheth Berachoth in the Talmud editions, immediately 
after Maimonides’ Introduction to Seder Zeraim. 


LANGUAGE OF THE MISHNA. 


§ 5. 


The language of the Mishna is New Hebrew, as developed 
during the period of the second Temple. The Hebrew having 
been supplanted by the Aramaic dialects as the language of 
common life, the ancient idiom was cultivated by the learned 
for liturgical and legal purposes. Many new words and phrases 
had to be coined to express new ideas andobjects, and new 
grammatical forms and syntactical constructions adopted for 
the favored processes of legal dialectics. As far as possible 
use was made for this purpose of new derivations of the stock 
of Biblical words and of some genuine Hebrew roots which 
though not happening to occur in the Biblical literature still 
lingered in the memory of the people. Besides, recourse was 
had to the dominating languages. From the Aramaic especially 
some word roots and grammatical inflections, derivations and 
constructions were borrowed and modified according to the 
genius of the Hebrew idiom, Utensils and other objects and 
ideas till then unknown were designated by the same terms, 
used by that nation from which they had been borrowed. In 
this way, many Greek terms and with them also some Latin 
words more or less modified, were adopted and naturalized.' 


1 Modern works on the language of the Mishna are: 

M. I. Landau, Geist und Sprache der Hebraer nach dem zweiten 
Tempelbau (Prague 1822). 

A. Geiger. Lehr-und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mishna (Breslau, 
1845). . 

L. Dukes, Sprache der Mishna (Esslingen, 1845). 

J. H. Weiss, Mishpat Leshon ha-Mishna (Vienna 1867). 

Herm. L. Strack und GC. Siegfried, Lehrbuch der neuhebraeischen 

Sprache und Literatur, Karlsruhe und Leipzig, 1884. 

Salomon Stein, Das Verbuin der Mischnasprache, Berlin 1888. 


16 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


In this New Hebrew language, also called the language of 
the sages (OMD2N pw? or y3isa7 N3w), are composed not only the 
Mishna but also the kindred works to be mentioned in the fol- 
lowing chapter. 

As to the styleof expression, the Mishna is very brief and 
concise well calculated to impress itself upon the memory- 


CHAPTER IT. 
WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA. 


§ 6. 

There are several works which are kindred to the contents 
of the Mishna, and originated partly before and partly after its 
close, though their present shape belongs to a much later period. 
We refer to the TZosephta, the Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre. 
Tnese works are very important from the fact that they throw 
much light on the Mishna in revealing the sources of many of 
its canons, and the reasons of its diverging opinions. For this 
purpose, they arefrequently quoted in the Gemara. The follow- 
ing will briefly describe each of these works. 


a. THE TOSEPHTA. 


ST. 

The word Tosephta (SMboDiN) means Addition, Supplement, 
and, as indicated by this name, the work is intended to complete 
deficienciesof the Mishna. It is divided into Masechtoth, gene- 
rally corresponding to those of the Mischna, but differing from 
them in the arrangement of their subject, and in the division of 
their Perakim. The latter are not subdivided into paragraphs. 
There are in all sixty Masechtoth and 452 Perakim, The Tosephta 
contains mainly the remnants of the earlier compilations of the 
Halacha made by R. Akiba, R. Meir, R. Nehemia, and others not 
adopted in the Mishna, and, besides, additions made, after R. 
Jehuda Hanasi’s death, by his desciples R. Chiya, R.Oshaya, Bar 
Kappara and others. But we find in that work also many sayings 
and decisions of later Amoraim of the Babylonian and Palestin- 
ian schools. In its present shape it belongs to the fifth or 
sixth century.’ 


1 The Tosephta is usually printed as an appendix to Alphasi’s com- 
pendium of the Talmud. In the Vienna edition of the Eabyl. Talmud 
(1860-72) the Masechtoth of the Tosephta are appended to the corres- 
ponding Mosechtoth of the Talmud. A separate revised edition of the 
whole Tosephta was published by Dr. Zuckermandel (Pasewalk and 
Treves,1877-82). Dr. Adolph Schwartz is publishing a new edition of the 


18 TLISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


b. THE MECHILTA. 


S43) 


The Mechilta, the Siphra and the Siphre have this in com. 
mon, that they treat of the oral law not according to well arrang 
ed subjects, as is the case with the Mishna and the Tosephta, 
but rather in the form of a running commentary and discussion 
on the biblical passages from which the law is deduced or on 
which it is based. 


The term Mechilta (yAd Dy), being the Aramaic equivalent 
of the Hebrew word 77413, means originally ‘‘Measure”, but in the 
rabbinical language it signifies the method of the traditional in- 
terpretation (Midrash), and then a collection of interpretations 
of the law. 


The work bearing that particular name contains a collec- 
tion of rabbinical interpretations on several sections of the second 
book of Moses; beginning with Ex. ch. XII, 1, it goes on till ch. 
XXIIT-19. Of the remaining chapters it comments only on 
XXXII, 12-17 and on XXXV, 1-3. 

Though principally of a legal character (Midrash Halacha), 
it has also homiletical interpretations (Midrash Agada), 
especially on Ex. XIII, 17-XIX, 25. 

The Mechilta is divided into nine main sections (Masechtoth), 
named according to the contents of the Bible passage which they 
expound, as NMmDBT ASD, nowst por ete. Each Masechta is 
subdivided into chapters (Parashoth), the total number of which 
is 77. 

Passages from the Mechilta are occasionally quoted in the 
Talmud, without however mentioning the name of that book. 
In the post-Talmudic literature it is mentioned as "4 spdop 
Sxyow. Some were therefore inclined to regard R. Ishmael 


Tosephta with notes and text corrections, of which the first volume 
is out, Wilna 1891. 

Critical researches on the Tosephta are found in Frankl’s Darke 
Hamishna pp. 304-307 and in I. H. Weiss’, Dor Dor etc. IT pp. 217-225 ; 
also in I. H. Duenner’s Wesen and Ursprung der Tosephta, Amster- 
dam 1874, 


WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA 19 


(flourishing in the beginning ofthe second century) as its author; 
but against this opinion speaks the circumstance that thenames 
of teachers living much later are mentioned in the book. Modern 
scholars hold that the Mechilta was originally a collection of 
teachings of R. Ishmael and his school. This collection having 
been brought from Palestine to Babylon,received there many in- 
terpolations. In the form we possess it, the book belongs to the 
fourth or fifth century.’ 


ec. THE SIPHRA. 
§ 9. 


The Siphra ("45D i. e. the book), also called Torath Coha- 
nim, is a collection of traditional interpretations of the whole 
book of Leviticus, introduced by an exposition of R. Ishmael’s 
thirteen hermeneutic rules. 

Different from the Mechilta, the style of the Siphra is gen- 
erally more argumentative, defending the traditional interpreta- 
tions against possible objections. Both names of this book are 
mentioned, and numerous passages thereof are quoted, in the 
Talmud. The authorship of its essential parts is there ascribed 
to R. Jehuda b. Ilai, a disciple of R. Akiba (many. SADD OND 
Sanhed. 86),and according to this statement the collection origin- 
ated in Palestine in the middle of the second century. But in 
the course of time it was considerably increased by additions 
from the hands of later teachers, especially those belonging to 
the school of Abba Areca and is therefore also called 35 S237 875D.’ 

As before us, the book has two different divisions which are 

1 The latest editions vf the Mechilta with critical introductions 
and annotations were published by I. H. Weiss (Vienna (885) and by 
M. Friedmann (Vienna 1870.) 

Critical researches on the Mechilta are also found in Frankel’s 
Monatschrift 1853, pp. 388 398, and Geiger’s Urschrift pp. 140, 152 sqq. 
and in his Zeitung 1871 pp. 8-28. I. H. Weiss Dor Dor II, pp. 225-2381. 

2 The latest edition of the Siphra with the commentary of R 
Abraham b. David of Posquieres (Rabed) and annotations by I H. 
Weiss was published Vienna 1862. 

As to critical researches on the Siphra, see Frankel, Monatsschrift 
1854 and I. H. Weiss, in his Introduction to the Siphra, and in his Dor 
Dor II p. 281-236. 


20 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


rather bewildering, one according to the customary Sabbath 
lessons, Parashoth, subdivided into Perakim; the other according 


to sections named after their main conterts and subdivided into 
chapters termed Parasha or Parashata. 


d. THE SIPHRE, 


§ 10. 


The Siphre, or, as its fuller title reads, 35 $353 “DD (the 
books of the school of Rab), comprises the traditional interpret- 
ations of the book of Numbers, beginning with chapter V, and 
of the whole book of Deuteronomy. The author of the Siphre on 
Numbers was evidently not the same as the author of that on the 
last book of the Pentateuch. Thestyle of the former, being more 
argumentative and discoursive, often resembles that of the Siphra, 
while Siphre on Deuteronomy is generally brief, bearing more 
resemblance to the Mechilta. The passages anonymously given 
in the Siphre are ascribed in the Talmud to R. Simon b. Jochai, 
one of the distinguished disciples of R. Akiba (yw 75D OND 
Sanhedrin 86a); but,as, on the one hand,many of those passages 
can be traced back to the school of R. Ishmael, and, on the other 
hand, teachers of a much later period are mentioned therein, 
it is the opinion of modern scholars that the Siphre before us is 
a composite of two different works which, like the Siphra, receiv- 
ed its present shape in the Babylonian shools founded by Abba 
Areca. . 

The Siphre is divided into sections corresponding to those 
of the Sabbath lessons and subdivided into paragraphs, termed 
Piskoth. That on Numbers has 161, and that on Deuterenomy 
357 Piskoth.? 


e. BARAITHA. 
Sarile 
Besides the Tosephta, the Mechilta, the Siphra and the 


Siphre just described, other collections of a similar character 
existed during the Talmudical period. In the course of time 


1 The latest edition «f the Siphre with annotations is that of M. 
Friedmann, Vienna 1864. 


WORKS KINDRED TO THE MISHNA, 2) 


they perished, but many hundred fragmentary passages thereof 
are quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Ge- 
mara. Such a passage quoted from those lost collections as well, 
as from the Tosephta, Mechilta, Siphra and Siphre was termed 
Baraitha (S73), or AMathnitha Laraitha, meaning an extrane- 
ous Mishna. This term was used in order to distinguish those 
passages from passages, in our Mishna, that is, the authorized 
Mishna of R. Jehuda Hanasi, compared with which they had 
but a subordinate value. The Baraithoth are often found to be 
conflicting with each other or with the authorized Mishna, and 
in this case the Gemara usually displays, great ingenuity and 
subtility in the attempt to reconcile them. In some instances, 
however, one or the other Baraitha is declared to be spurious.1 


1 Some critical researches on the Baraitha are found in Frankel’g 
Darke Hamishna p. 311-318, and in I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor II p. 239-244, 


CHAPTER III. 
THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 


§ 12. 


The authorities mentioned in the Mishna and Baraitha as 
having transmitted and developed the oral law belong to three 
different periods, namely: 


1. The period of Sopherim 
2. The period of Zugoth, and 
3. The period of Zanaim. 


a. Sopherim or scribes were the learned men who succeed- 
ed Ezra during a period of about two hundred years. To them 
Inany institutions and extensions of the Mosaic law are ascribed 
D51D “7D7 OMI niipn. The Sopherim are also called collect- 
ively A5y73N Nos CwaN the Men of the Great Synod. According 
to tradition, this synod consisted of 120 members, but we have 
no record of their names with the exception of Zzra, its founder, 
and of Simon the Just (the high priest Simon I, between 310-292, 
or his grandson Simon II, between 220-202 B. ©.) who is said 
to have been one of the last members of the Great Synod. 


Antigonos of Socho, a disciple of Simon the Just, was the 
connecting link between this and the following period. 


b. The word Zugeth (mat), meaning the pairs (duumviri), 
is the appellation of the leading teachers from Jose ben Joezer 
till Hillel, of whom always two, at the same time, stood at the 
head of the Sanhedrin, one as president (Nasi), and the other 
as vice-president (Ab beth din). 


The succession of these Zugoth was: 


1. Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Jochanan, flourishing at 
the time of the Maccabean wars of independence. 

2. Joshua b. Perachia and Nitat of Arbela, flourishing at 
the time of John Hyrcan. 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 23 


8. Judab. Tabai and Simon 6. Shetach, flourishing at the 

time of Alexander Janai and queen Salome. 

4, Shemaiah and Adtalion, flourishing at the time of 

Hyrcan II. 
5. Hillel and Shamazi, flourishing at the time of king 
Herod. 

ec. With the disciples of Hillel and Shamai begins the 
period of Zanaim, which lasted about 210 years (from 10 to 220 
Ch. Era). With the beginning of this period the title Radbdz 
(my teacher) for the ordained teachers,and the title Raddan, our 
teacher) for the president of the Sanhedrin came in use. 

In the Mishna, the term Tana (N3n), meaning a teacher of 
the oral law, does not yet occur. Those teachers are there sig- 
nified by generally adding the title of Raésdz to their names, or 
by calling them collectively pan the Sages, while the author- 
ities of the preceding period are occasionally designated D°3pt 
osswssn the former elders. It is first in the Gemara that the 
term Zana (Njn) is applied to a teacher mentioned in the 
Mishna and Baraitha, in contradistinction to the Amoraim, ex- 
pounders of the Mishna, as the teachers after R. Jehuda Hanasi 
are called. 

The period of the Tanaim is generally divided into 5 or 6 
minor sections or generations. The purpose of this division is 
to show which teachers developed their principal activity con- 
temporaneously, though the actual lifetime of some of them ex- 
tended to more than one generation. 

The following chronological tables contain the names only 
of the more prominent teachers of each generation, Every 
table is followed by short biographical sketches of the teachers 
mentioned therein.’ 


1 Fuller characteristics of the lives and teachings of the principal 
Tanaim are given in the following works: 

Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. IV. 

Z. Frankel, Darke Hamishna. 

I. H. Weiss, Zur Geschichte der juedischen Tradition, Vol. I. 
and IT. 

Jacob Bruell, Mebo Hamishna, Vol. I. 

J. Hamburger, Real Encyclopaedie, Vol. II. Die Talmudischen 
Artikel. 

M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah, 


24 HISTORICAI. AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


THE FIRST GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
§ J B35, 


The principal Tanaim of the first generation, which lasted 
about seventy years ', from 10 to 80, C. E., are: 


1. The School of Shamai, and the School of Hillel 
2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. 

3. Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. 

4. Rabbi Cnanina, Chief of the Priests. 

5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. 

6. R..Jochanan ben Zaccai. 


Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 


1. The School of Shamai and the School of Hillel were founded 
by the disciples of the great teachers whose names they bear. Follow- 
ing the principles of their masters,they differed widely in their opinions 
on many legal questions; the School of Shamai, in general, taking a 
rigorous, and the school of Hillel a more lenient view of the question. 
In their frequent controversies the School of Shamai, having been 
founded already during the life time of Hillel, is always mentioned 
first. Of individual teachers belonging to either of these two schools 
only avery few are occasionally mentioned by name. Both schools exist- 
ed during the whole period of the first generation, and the antagonism 
of their followers extended even to the middle of the subsequent gener- 
ation. 

2. Akabia ben Mahalalel. Of this teacher who flourished 
shortly after Hillel only a few opinions and traditions are recorded. 
According to what is related of him in Mishna Eduyoth V, 6. 7, he 
was a noble character with unyielding principles. 

3. Rabban Gamaliel the Hider. He was ason of R. Simon, and 
grandson of Hillel whom he succeeded in the office of Nasi. Many 
important ordinances (npn) of the Rabbinical law are ascribed to him 
He died eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Th ; 
epithet “the Elder” generally added to his name, is to distinguish him 


1 This comparatively great length of the first generation is easily 
explained by the circumstance,that it refers to the duration of the pre 
vailing Schools of Shamai and Hillel,and not, as in the subsequent gen 
erations, to that of the activity of a single leading teacher. 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 25 


from his grandson Gamaliel of Jabne, who flourished in the following 
generation. 

4, Rabbi Chanina,Chief of the Priests, or the proxy of the high- 
priest. He as well as ‘‘the court of Priests” 9°375 by 5/5 are inciden- 
tally mentioned in the Mishna in connection with laws concerning the 
sacrifices and the temple service. 

5. R. Simon ben Gamaliel. He was the son and successor of Rab- 
ban Gamaliel the Elder, and was executed by the Romans in the time 
of the destruction of Jerusalem. Belonging to the school of Hillel, 
his individual opinions in questions of law are but rarely recorded in 
the Mishna. He must not be confounded with his grandson who had 
the same name and belonged to the fourth generation of Tanaim. 

6. R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. This distinguished teacher was one of 
the youngest disciples of Hillel, occupied a high position already be- 
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, and afterwards became the founder 
and head of the celebrated academy of Jabne (Jamnia). 

Of other authorities belonging to the first generation of Tanaim, 
mention must be made of Admon, Chanan and Nachum the Mede, who 
were civil judges before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and 
whose legal opinions are occasionally recorded in the Mishna, 


THE SECOND GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
§ 14, 


This generation lasted about forty years, from 80 to 120. 
The principal Tanaim belonging to it are: 


1. Rabban Gamaliel II (of Jabne). 
Rabbi Zadok. 

R. Dosa (b. Harchinas). 

R. Eliezer b. Jacob. 

R. Eliezer (b. Hyrcanos). 

R. Joshua (b. Chanania). 

R. Elazar b. Azaria. 

R. Juda b. Bathyra. 


OT oT Ro BD 


Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 


1. Rabban Gamaliel Il. He was a grandson of Gamaliel the Elder; 
after the death of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai he became president of the 


26 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


academy of Jabne,and like his ancestors, he bore the title Nasi (Prince); 
with the Romans, Patriarch. In order to distinguish him from his 
grandfather, he received the surname Gamaliel of Jabne, or the 
Second. 


%. KR. Zadok, Of him it is related that he, in anticipation of the 
destruction of the Temple, fasted for forty successive years. He then 
removed to Jabne where he as well as his son, R. Eliezer b. Zadok, be- 
longed to the distinguished teachers. 


3. Rk. Dosa b. Harchinas belonged to the school of Hillel, and 
removed with R. Jochanan b. Zaccai from Jerusalem to Jabne where 
he reached a very old age. He stood in such high esteem that his most 
distinguished colleagues appealed to his opinion in doubtful cases. 


4. Rk. Eliezer b. Jacob was head ofa school, and in possession of 
traditions concerning the structure and interior arrangements of the 
temple. He is also mentioned with commendation as to his method of 
instruction whicn was ‘‘concise and clear” (9p) 3p). There was also an- 
other Tana by a similar name who flourished in the fourth generation. 

0. &, Eliezer b. Hyrkanos,in the Mishna called simply R. Eliezer, 
was one of the most distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai 
who characterized him as ‘‘the lime cemented cistern that does not 
lose a drop”. He was a faithful conservator of handed-down decisions 
and. opposed to their slightest modification and to any new deductions 
to be made therefrom. His school was in Lydda, in South Judea, 
Though formerly a disciple of the Hillelites, he inclined to the views 
of the Shamaites and consequently came in conflict with his colleagues. 
Being persistent in his opinion, and conforming to it even in practice, 
he was excommunicated by his own brother-in-law, the patriarch 

ramaliel IT. 

6. R. Joshua b. Chanania, in general called simply R. Joshua, 
was likewise one of the favored disciples of R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. 
Shortly before the destruction of the Temple he left Jerusalem with 
his teacher, after whose death he founded a separate school in Bekiin. 
As member of the Sanhedrin in Jabne, he participated conspicuously 
in its deliberations and debates. His discussions were mostly with 
FR. Eliezer to whose unyielding conservatism he formed a striking con- 
trast, as he represented the more rational and conciliatory element of 


that generation, and combined with great learning the amiable virtues 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. DAL 


of gentleness, modesty and placability which characterized the Hil- 
lelites. As he, on several occasions, was humiliated by the Nasi Gamaliel 
II with whom he differed on some questions, the members of the San- 
hedrin resented this insult of their esteemed colleague by deposing the 
offender from his dignity and electing another president. It was 
only through the interference of the appeased R. Joshua that R. Gam- 
aliel, who apologized for his conduct, was again restored to his office. 


7% R. Elazarb. Azaria descended from a noble family whose 
pedigree was traced up to Ezra the Scribe. Already while a young 
man, he enjoyed such a reputation for his great learning that he was 
made president of the academy at Jabne in place of the deposed R. 
Gamaliel. When the latter was reinstated, R. Elazar was appointed 
as vice-president. His controversies were mostly with R. Joshua, R. 
Tarphon, R. Ishmael and Kk. Akiba. On account of the noble virtues 
which he combined with his great learning he was compared to ‘a 
vessel filled with aromatic spices”, and R. Joshua said of him: ‘‘agen- 
eration having a man like R. Elazar b. Azaria, is not orphaned”. 


8. R. Juda b. Bathyra had a school in Nisibis (in Assyria) 
already at the time when the temple of Jerusalem was still in exist- 
ence. He was probably a descendant of the family Bene Bathyra who 
were leaders of the Sanhedrin under king Herod, and who resigned 
that oftice in favor of Hillel. Several other Tanaim had the same 
family name, as R. Joshua b. Bathyra, R. Simon b. Bathyra and one 
called simply Ben Bathyra. 


Of other teachers belonging to the second generation we have yet 
to mention R. Nechunia b. Hakana who was the teacher of R. Ishmael, 
and Nachum of Gimzo who introduced the hermeneutic rule of 35 
1,9) (extension and limitation) which was later further developed 
by his great disciple R. Akiba. 


28 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


THE THIRD GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
Se TIGY, 


Several Teachers of the third generation, which lasted from 
the year 120 till about 139, flourished already in the preceding 
one. The principal teachers are: 


1. KR. Tarphon. 

2. HK. Ishmael: 

ay dat Wel eny, 

4, R. Jochanan b. Nuri, 
5. R. Jose the Galilean. 
6. R. Simon b. Nanos. 

1. Re Judah babs. 

8. R. Jochanan b. Broka. 


Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 


1, R. Tarphon, or Tryphon, of Lydda. He is ssid to have been 
inclined to the views of the School of Shamai. On account of his 
great learning he was called ‘‘the teacher of Israel”; besides, he was 
praised for his great charitable works. His legal discussions were 
mostly with his colleague R. Akiba. 

2. R. Ishmael (b. Elisha) was probably a grandson of the high 
priest Ishmael b. Elisha who was condemned to death by Titus together 
with the patriarch Simon b. Gamaliel I. When still a boy, he was 
made a captive and brought to Rome, where R. Joshua who happened 
to come there on a mission,redeemed him at a high ransom and brought 
him back to Palestine. R. Nechunia b. Hakana is mentioned as one 
of his principal teachers. When grown to manhood, he became a 
member of the Sanhedrin and was highly revered by his colleagues. 
He is named among those who emigrated with the Sanhedrin from 
Jabne to Usha. His residence was in South Judea ina place called 
Kephar Aziz. His academical controversies were mostly with R. 
Akiba to whose artificial methods of interpreting the law he was 
stronsly opposed, on the principle that the Thora, being composed in 
the usual language of man, must be interpreted in a plain and ration- 
alway. As guiding rules of interpretation he accepted only the seven 
logical rules which had been laid down by Hillel, which he howeve’, 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 29 


by some modifications and subdivisions, enlarged to thirteen. Of these 
thirteen rules we shall treat in the second part of this work. A separate 
school which he founded was continued after his death by his dis- 
ciples and was known by the name of “Be R. Ishmael”. Of the book 
Mechilta which is ascribed to R. Ishmael and his school we have spoken 
above (p. 18). 

38. R. Akiba (b. Joseph) was the most prominent among the 
Tanaim. He is said to have descended from a proselyte family and to 
have been altogether illiterate up to theage of his manhood. Filled with 
the desire to acquire the knowledge of the law, he entered a school 
and attended the lectures of the distinguished teachers of that time, 
especially of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, R. Joshua b. Chanania, and of 
Nachum of Gimzo. Subsequently he founded a school in B’ne Brak, 
near Jabne, and became a member of the Sanhedrin in the last men- 
tioned city. Through his keen intellect, his vast learning and his 
energetic activity he wielded a great influence in developing 
and diffusing the traditional law. He arranged the accumulated 
material of that law in a proper system and methodical order, and 
enriched its substance with many valuable deductions of his own. His 
methodical arrangement and division of that material was completed 
by his disciple R. Meir, and later on became the groundwork of the 
Mishna compiled by R. Jehuda Hanasi. Besides, he introduced a new 
method of interpreting the Scriptures which enabled him to find a 
biblical basis for almost every provision of the oral law. This ingen- 
ious method, which will be described in the IT Part of this book, was 
admired by his contemporaries, and notwithstanding the opposition of 
some of his colleagues, generally adopted in addition to the 13 hermen- 
eutic rules of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba’s legal opinions are very frequently 
recorded in all parts of the Mishna and inthe kindred works. His acad- 
emical discussions are mostly with his former teachers R. Eliezer, R. 
Joshuaand with his colleagues R. Tarphon, R. Jochanan b, Nuri, R. 
Jose the Galilean and others. 


R. Akiba died a martyr to religion and patriotism. Having been 
a, stout supporter of the cause of Bar Cochba, he was cruelly executed 
by the Romans for publicly teaching the Law contrary to the edict of 
the emperor Hadrian. 

4. R. Jochanan b. Nuri was a colleague of R. Akiba with whom 
he frequently differed on questions of the law. In his youth he seems 
to have been a disciple of R. Gamaliel II. for whose memory he always 


30 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


retained a warm veneration, He presided over a college in Beth She- 
arim, a place near Sepphoris in Galilee. 

do. &. Jose the Galilean was a very distinguished teacher. Of 
his youth and education nothing is known. At his first appearance in 
the Sanhedrin of Jabne, he participated in a debate with R Tarphon 
and with R. Akiba and displayed such great learning and sagacity 
that he attracted general attention. From this debate his reputation as 
a teacher was established. He was an authority especially in the laws 
concerning the sacrifices and the temple service. His discussions were 
mostly with R. Akiba, R. Tarphon and R, Elazar b. Azariah. Of his 
domestic life it is related that he had the bad fortune of having an ill- 
tempered wife, who treated him so meanly that he was compelled to 
divorce her, but learning that she in her second marriage lived in great 
misery,he generously provided her and her husband with all the neces- 
saries of life. One of his sons, R. Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean, 
became a distinguished teacher in the following generation and estab- 
lished the thirty two hermeneutic rules of the Agada. 


6. AR. Simon b. Nanos, also called simply Ben Nanos, wasa 
great authority especially in the civil law, so that R. Ishmael recom- 
mended to all law students to attend the lectures of this profound 
teacher. His legal controversies were mostly with R. Ishmael and R. 
Akiba. 


7 R, Judah b. Baba, who on account of his piety was called 
the Chasid, is noteworthy not only as a distinguished teacher but also 
as a martyr to Judaism. Contrary to the Hadrianic edict which,under 
extreme penalty, prohibited the ordination of teachers, he ordained 
seven disciples of R. Akiba as Rabbis, and for this act was stabbed to 
death by the Roman soldiers. 


8. &. Jochanan b. Broka was an authority especially in the civil 
law, Also his son R, Ishmael was a distinguished teacher who flourish- 
ed in the following generation. Of other teachers belonging to this 
generation the following are to be mentioned. R. Elazar (or Eliezer) 
of Modin, an authority in Agada interpretation. R. Mathiab. Charash 
who, formerly a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, founded a school in 
the city of Rome and thus was the first teacher who transplanted the 
knowledge of the rabbinical law from Asia to Europe; further, several 
of R, Akiba’s earlier disciples, especially (Simon) Ben Zoma ana 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 31 


(Simon) Ben Azai, both of whom, besides being distinguished in the 
law, were also deeply engaged in the theosophic speculations of those 
times. 

THE FOURTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 


§ 16. 


This generation extended from the death of R. Akiba to 
the death of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel IT, from the 
year 139 to about 165. Almost all leading teachers of this ge- 
neration belong to the latter disciples of R. Akiba, 


eis a Kah 

2. R. Jehuda (ben Ilai). 

8. R. Jose (ben Chalafta). 

4, R. Simon (b. Jochai). 

5. R. Elazar (b. Shamua). 

6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar. 
7. KR. Elazar b. Jacob. 

8. R. Nehemia. 

9, R. Joshua b. Korcha. 

10. R. Simon b. Gamaliel. 


Characteristics and Biographical Sketches, 


1. R. Meir, the most prominent among the numerous disciples 
of R. Akiba, was a native of Asia Minor and gained a subsistence as 
a skilfull copyist of sacred Scripture. At first, he entered the acad- 
emy of R. Akiba, but finding himself not sufficiently prepared to 
grasp the lectures of this great teacher, he attended, for some time, 
the school of R. Ishmael, where he acquired an extensive knowledge 
of the law. Returning then to R. Akiba and becoming his constant and 
favored disciple, he developed great dialectical powers. R. Akiba 
soon recognized his worth and preferred him to other disciples by 
ordaining him at an early date. This ordination was later renewed 
by R. Judah b. Baba. On account of the Hadrianic persecutions, R. Meir 
had to flee from Judea, but after the repeal of those edicts, he 
returned and joined his colleagues in re-establishing the Sanhedrin 
in the city of Usha, in Galilee. His academy was in Emmaus, near 


Tiberias, and for a time also in Ardiscus near Damascus where a large 


ayy HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


circle of disciples gathered around him. Under the patriarch R. 
Simon b. Gamaliel IT he occupied the dignity of a Chacham (advising 
Sage), in which office he was charged with the duty of pre- 
paring the subjects to be discussed in tne Sanhedrin. A conflict 
which arose between him and the patriarch seems to have induced 
him to leave Palestine and return. to his native country, Asia Minor, 
where he died. R. Meir’s legal opinions are mentioned almost in every 
Masechta of the Mishna and Baraitha. His greatest merit was that 
he continued the labors of R. Akiba in arranging the rich material 
of the oral law according to subjects, and in this way prepared the 
great Mishna compilation of R. Judah Hanasi. Besides being one of 
the most distingued teachers of the law, he was also « very popular 
lecturer (Agadist) who used to illustrate his lectures by interesting 
fables and parables. Of his domestic life it is known that he was 
married to Beruria the learned daughter of the celebrated teacher 
and martyr R. Chananiah b. Teradyon. The pious resignation which 
he and his noble wife exhibited at the sudden death of their two 
promising sons has been immortalized by a popular legend in the 
Midrash. 

2. R. Jehuda b. Ilaiis generally called in the Mishna simply 
R. Jehuda. After having received instruction in the law from his 
father who had been a disciple of R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, he attended 
the lectures of R. Tarphon and became then one of the distinguished 
disciples of R. Akiba. On account of his great eloquence he is called 
p2707 wx “The first among the speakers”, Also his pietv, mod- 
esty and prudence are highly praised. He gained a modest subsistence 
by a mechanical trade, in accordance with his favored maxims: ‘‘Labor 
honors man”, and ‘‘He who does not teach his son a trade, teaches 
him, as it were, robbery”. Having been one of the seven disciples who 
after the death of R. Akiba were ordained by R. Juda b. Baba contrary 
to the Hadrianic edict, he had to flee. After three years he returned 
with his colleagues to Usha and became one of the prominent mem- 
bers of the resuscitated Sanhedrin. The patriarch R. Simon ben Gama- 
liel honored him greatly, and appointed him as one of his advisers. 
As expounder of the law he was a great authority, and is very often 
quoted in all parts of the Mishna and Baraitha. His legal opinions 
generally prevail, when differing from those of his colleagues R. Meir 
and R. Simon. To him is also ascribed the authorship of the essential 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 33 


part of the Siphra. (See above p. 19). The Agada of tiie Talmud records 
many of his beautiful sayings which characterize him not only asa 
noble-hearted teacher, but also as a sound and clear-headed interpreter 
of Scriptures. He, for instance, denied the literal meaning of the 
resurrection of the dead bones spoken of in Ezekiel ch. XXXVII, but 
declared it to be merely a poetical figure for Israel’s rejuvenation (Talm 
Sanhedrin 72 b.). 

R. Jehuda had two learned sons who flourished as teachers in the 
following generation. 

3. R. Jose b. Chalafta, in the Mishna called simply R. Jose, was 
from Sepphoris where already his learned father had established a 
school, Though by trade a tanner, he became one of the most disting- 
uished teachers of his time. He wasa disciple of R. Akiba and of 
R. Tarphon. Like his colleagues he was ordained by R. Juda b. Baba 
and, on this account, had to flee to the south of Palestine, whence he 
later on returned with them to Usha. For having kept silent, when 
in his presence R. Simon made a slighting remark against the Roman 
government, he was banished to Asia Minor. When permitted to 
return, he settledin his native city Sepphoris where he died in a high 
age. Besides being a great authority in the law, whose opinions prevail 
against those of his colleagues R. Meir, R. Jehuda and R. Simon, he 
was an historian to whom the authorship of the chronological book 
Seder Olam is ascribed. 

4, R. Simon b. Jochai from Galilee, in the Mishna called simply R. 
Simon, was likewise one of the most distinguished disciples of R. 
Akiba whose lectures he attended during thirteen years. ‘‘Be satisfied 
that I and thy creator know thy powers”, were the words with which 
this teacher comforted him, when he felt somewhat slighted on 
account of a certain preference given to his younger colleague R. Meir. 
He shared the fate of his colleagnes in being compelled to flee after 
ordination. Afterwards, he joined them at the new seat of the 
Sanhedrin in Usha. Onacertain occasion he gave vent to his bitter 
feeling against the Romans, which was reported tothe Roman governor 
who condemned him to death. He, however, escaped this fate by 
concealing himself ina cave where he is said to have remained for 
several years together with his son, engaged in the study of the law, 
and subsisting on the fruit of the carob-trees which abounded there 
in the neighborhood. In the meantime political affairs had taken a 


34 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


favorable turnso that he had no longer to fear any persecution; he left 
his hiding place and reopened his academy at Tekoa, in Galilee, where 
a circle of disciples gathered around him. Me survived all his col- 
leagues, and in his old age was delegated to Rome, where he succeeded 
in obtaining from the emperor (Marcus Aurelius) the repeal of some 
edicts against the Jewish religion. 

In the interpretation of the law, R. Simon departed from the 
method of his teacher R. Akiba, as he inclined to the view of R. 
Ishmael that ‘the Thora speaks the common language of man”, and 
consequently regarded logical reasoning as the proper starting point 
for legal deductions, instead of pleonastic words, syllables and letters. 
In accordance with this sound principle, he tried to investigate the 
evident motive of different biblical laws, and to make conclusions 
therefrom for their proper application.! In regard to treating and 
arranging the oral law, however, he followed the method of R. Akiba 
in subsuming various provisions under guiding rules and principles. 
R. Simon is regarded as the author of the Siphre, though that work in 
its present shape shows 1aany additions by the hands of later authorities. 
(See above p. 20). 

do. &. Elazar b. Shamua, in the Mishna simply R. Elazar, was 
among those of R. Akiba’s disciples who in consequence of the Hadrian 
edicts went to the South, whence he went to Nisibis. He does not, 
however, appear to have joined his colleagues when they gathered 
again at Usha. He is regarded asa great authority in the law. The 
place of his academy is not known, but it is stated that his school was 
always overcrowded by disciples eager to hear his learned lectures. 
Among his disciples was also the later patriarch R. Jehuda. Ona 
journey, he visited his former colleague R. Meir at Ardiscos. in Asia 
Minor, and with him had discussions on important questions of the 
law which are recorded in the Mishna and Baraitha. 

6. R. Jochanan the Sandelar had this surname probably from 
his trade in sandals. Born in Alexandria in Egypt, he came to Palestine 
to attend the lectures of R. Akiba, and was so faithful a disciple that 
he visited this teacher even in prison, in order to receive instruction 
from him. His legal opinions are occasionaly recorded in the Mishna 
as well as in the Tosephta and Baraitha. 


1 See Talm. B. Metzia 115 a and Sanhedrin 21 a. 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 85 


7 Rh. Elazar (or Eliezer) 6. Jacob was a disciple of Rk. Akiba and 
later a member of the Sanhedrin in Usha. This teacher must not be 
confounded with a former teacher by that name who flourished in the 
second generation (See above p. 26). 

8. R. Nechemia belonged to the last disciples of R. Akiba and was 
an authority especially in the sacrificial law and in the laws concerning 
levitical purificaticn. His controversies are mostly with R. Juda b. 
lai. He is said to have compiled a Mishna- collection which was 
embodied in the Tosephta. 

9. &. Joshua b. Korcha is supposed by some to have been a son 
of R. Akiba who, on one occasion, is called by such asurname (meaning 
the bald head) ; but this supposition is very improbable, for it would 
be strange that the son of so illustrious a man should not rather have 
been called by his father’s proper name, and that he should never have 
alluded to his celebrated parent or to any of his teachings. ! 

R. Joshua b. K. belonged to the authorities of this generation, 
though only a few of his opinions are recorded in the Mishna. 

10. &. Simon b. Gamaliel was the sun and successor of the 
patriarch Gamaliel II of Jabne. In his youth, he witnessed the fall of 
Bethar, and escaped the threatened arrest by flight. After the death 
of the emperor Hadrian, he returned to Jabne where he in connection 
with some teachers, reopened an academy, and assumed the hereditary 
dignity of a patriarch. As the returning disciples of R. Akiba, who were 
the leading teachers of that generation, preferred Usha as the seat of the 
new Sanhedrin, R. Simon was obliged to transfer his academy to that 
city, and appcinted R. Nathan as Ab Beth-din (vice-president) and R, 
Meir as Chacham (advising sage, or speaker). Both of these two officers 
had to retire however, when found planning his deposal on account of 
some marks of distinction introduced in order to raise the patriachal 
dignity. Hedid not enjoy the privilege of his predecessors to be titled 
Rabban (our teacher), but like the other teachers, he was simply called 
Rabbi (my teacher) !,probably because many of his contemporaries were 

1 That R. Akiba had ason by the name of R. Joshua is stated in 
a Baraitha (Pesachim 112a and Shebuoth 6a); but the identity of this 
son with R. Joshua b. Korcha is conclusively disproved by the Tosaph- 
ist Rabenu Tam in hisremarks on Sabbath 150a and B. Bathra 1138a. 

1 There are, however, some passages in the Mishna and Gemara 


in which he is called Rabban, as Gittin 74a; B. Bathra 118a; Arachin 
28a. 


36 HLISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


superior to him in learning. Still, his legal opinions, which are fre- 
quently quoted inthe Mishna and Baraitha, give evidence that he was 
aman of considerable learning and of sound and clear judgment as 
well as of noble principles. He introduced several legal provisions for 
the protection of the rights of women and slaves and for the general 
welfare of the community. All his opinions expressed in the Mishna, 
with the exception of only three cases, are regarded by later teachers 
as authoritative (Halacha). His discussions recorded in the Mishna and 
Baraitha are mostly held with his celebrated son R. Jehuda Hanasi. R. 
Simon b. Gamalie! appears to have been acquainted also with the Greek 
language and sciences. 

Of other authorities belonging to this generation, we have to 
mention: Abba Saul, R. Elazar b.Zadok. and especially R. Ishmael 
the son of R. Jochanan b. Broka. 

Apart from the great circle of teachers mentioned above, the 
disciples of R. Ishmael b. Elisha formed a school in the extreme South 
of Judea (Darom) where they continued the methods of their teacher. 
Of this separate school, called Debe R. Ishmael, only two members are 
mentioned by name: R. Josiah and Rk. Jonathan. 


THE FIFTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
§ Lis 


This generation extends from the death of R. Simon b. 
Gamaliel II to the death of R. Jehuda Hanasi (from 165 to 
about 200.) 

The following are the most prominent teachers of this gen- 
eration. 


— 


. R. Nathan (the Babylonian). 
2. Symmachos. 


3. KR. Jehuda Hanasi (the patriarch), called simply 
Rabbi. 


-4. R. Jose b. Juda. 
5. R. Elazar b. Simon, 
6. KR. Simon b. Elazar. 
Characteristics and Biographical Sketches. 
1. R. Nathan was the son of one of the exilarchs in Babylon, and 
probably received his education in his native country. For some 


THE AUTHORITIES OF THE M:‘SHNA. 87 


unknown reasons he emigrated to Judea, and on account of his great 
learning he was appointed by the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel 
to the dignity of Ab-Beth-din (chief Justice or vice-president) in the 
Sanhedrin of Usha. He had to retire from this office because of his 
and R. Meir’s dissension with the patriarch, but was soon reinstated 
and became reconciled with the Synhedrial president who held him in 
high esteem. Also the succeeding patriarch R. Jehuda, with whom he 
had many discussions on questions of the law, speaks of him with great 
respect, R.Nathan was not only an authorityin the rabbinical law, espec- 
ially in jurisprudence, but appears also to have been well versed in mathe- 
matics, astronomy and other sciences. To him is ascribed the authorship 
of Aboth de R. Nathan, which is a kind of Tosephta.to Pirke Aboth. 

2. Symmachos was a prominent disciple of R. Meir and disting- 
uished for his great dialectical powers. After the death of his teacher, 
he as well as other disciples of R. Meir were excluded from the academy 
of R. Jehuda Hanasi, as they were charged of indulging in sophistical 
disputations in order to display their dialectical sagacity, instead of 
seeking after truth. Nevertheless the Mishna as well as the Tosephta 
makes mention of the opinions of Symmachos. His renown lay in the 
rabbinical jurisprudence in which he laid down certain principles often 
referred to in the Talmud. 

3. &. Jehuda (Juda) Hanasi, by way of eminence simply called 
Rabbi, was a son of the patriarch R. Simon b. Gamaliel IT, and is said 
to have been born on the same day when R. Akiba was executed. His 
principal teachers were R. Simon b. Jochai and R. Elazar b. Shamua 
‘under whose guidance his intellectual capacity and splendid talents 
early developed. Beside his immense knowledge of the whole range 
of the traditional law, he had a liberal education in secular branches and 
was especially acquainted with the Greek language which he preferred 
to the Syriac, the popular language of Palestine at that time. After 
the death of his father he succeeded him in the dignity of patriarch, 
and became the chief authority eclipsing all other teachers of that 
generation. Though blessed with great riches, he preferred to live in 
a simple style and applied his wealth to the maintenance of his numer- 
ous pupils and to charitable works. The seat of his academy was first 
at Beth-Shearim, afterward at Sepphoris and also at Tiberias. Among 
his most distinguished disciples were: R. Chiya; (Simon) bar Kappara: 


88 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Levi bar Sissi; R. Abba Areca, later called Rab; Mar Samuel, and many 
others. He issaid to have been ina friendly relation with one of the 
Roman emperors, either Marcus Aurelius or, more probably, Lucius 
Verus Antoninus. By virtue of his authority R. Jehuda abolished 
several customs and ceremonies which though sanctified by age had 
become impracticable through the change of times and circumstances. 
His most meritorious work by which he erected for himself a monu. 
ment of enduring fame was the completion of the Mishna compilation 
which henceforth became the authoritative code of the traditional law 
and superseded all similar compilations made by former teachers. 

4. R. Jose ben Juda (b. Ilai) belonged to the great teachers of 
that generation and was a friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi, His legal 
cpinions are frequently recorded in the Mishna as well as in the 
Tosephta. . 

5. R. Elazar b. Simon (b. Jochai) was a disciple of R. Simon b. 
Gamaliel and of R. Joshua b. Korcha. Although an authority in the 
rabbinical law to whom even the patriarch sometimes yielded, he 
incurred the severest censure of his colleagues for having, on a certain 
occasion, lent his assistance to the Romans in persecuting some Jewish 
freebooters. 

6. R. Simon b. Elazar (probably E. b. Shamua) was a disciple of 
R. Meir whose opinions he often quotes. He established several import- 
ant principles, especially in the civil law. 


THe AUTHORITIES OF THE MISHNA. 86 


THE SIXTH GENERATION OF TANAIM. 
§ 18. 


To this generation belong the younger contemporaries and 
disciples of R. Juda Hanasi. They are not mentioned in the 
Mishna, but inthe Tosephta and Baraitha, and are therefore 
termed semi-Tanaim, who form a connecting link between the 
period of Tanaim and that of the Amoraim. Their names are: 


lee limo; 

9. Ise b. Juda. 

See Wlazareb,J) ose. 
4. RR. Ishmael bar Jose. 
5. R. Juda b. Lakish. 
6. R. Chiya. 

Tee Wwe ACh ae 

8, R. Abba (Areca). 


The most prominent among these sémi-Tanaim were R, Chiya and 
R. Abba (Areca). 

1. BR. Chiya (bar Abba) the elder, which epithet is to distinguish 
him from a later Amora by the same mame, wasa Babylonian who 
came at an already advanced age to Palestine where he became the 
most distinguished disciple and friend of R. Jehuda Hanasi. He and 
his disciple R. Oshaya (or Hoshaya) are regarded as the principal authors 
or compilers of the Tosephta (see above p. 17). 

2, R. Abba (Areca) a nephew of R. Chiva was likewise a Babyl- 
onian and a disciple of R. Jehuda Hanasi, after whose death he 
returned to his native country where, under the historical name of Rab, 
he became the principal Amora. (See the following chapter). 

Of other distinguished teachers flourishing in this generation and 
in the beginning of the period of the Amoraim we have to mention 
especially R. Janai (the elder) and R. Jonathan (the elder). The 
former lived in Sepphoris and was one of the teachers of R. Jochanan 
bar Naphachi, the greatest among the Palestinian Amoraim. 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 
§ 19. 


As the Mishna compilation of R. Jehuda Hanasi became 
the authoritative code of the oral Law, the activity of the 
teachers was principally devoted to expounding this code. This 
was done as well in the academies of 77berias, Sepphoris, Caesarea 
in Palestine, as in those of Vahardea, Sura, and later of Pumba- 
ditha and some other seats of learning in Babylonia. The main 
object of the lectures and discussions in those academies was to 
interpret the often very brief and concise expression of the 
Mishna, to investigate its reasons and sources, to reconcile seem- 
ing contradictions, to compare its canons with those of the Ba- 
raithoth,and to apply its decisions and established principles to 
new cases not yet provided for. The teachers who were engaged 
in this work which finally became embodied in the Gemara, are 
called Amoraim, meaning speakers, interpreters, expounders. ! 
They were not as independent in their legal opinions and de- 
cisions as their predecessors, the Tanaim and semi-Tanaim, as 
they had not the authority to contradict Halachoth and prin- 
ciples accepted in the Mishna or Baraitha. The Palestinian 
Amoraim having generally been ordained by the Nasi had the 


* Ina more restricted meaning the term Amora(from 4px to say, 
to speak) signifies the same as Methurgeman (po271n1 the interpreter), 
that is the officer in the academies who, standing at the side of the 
lecturer or presiding teacher, had to announce loudly and explain to 
the large assembly what the teacher just expressed briefly and in a 
low voice, 


The term Tana, which generally applies only to the teachers men- 
tioned in the Mishna and Baraitha, is in the period of Amoraim some- 
times used also to signify one whose special business it was to recite the 
memorized Baraithoth to the expounding teachers. In this sense the 
term is to be understood in the phrase: 17557 4p NIN %2N Betza 29b. 
and often. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 4] 


title of Raddi, while the Babylonian teachers of that period had 
only the title of Aad or of Mar. 


The period of Amoraim extends from the death of R. Jehuda 
Hanasi to the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, that 1s, 
from the beginning of the third to the end of the fifth century. 
This period has been divided by some into six, by others into 
seven minor periods or generations which are determined by the 
beginning and the end of the activity of the most prominent 
teachers flourishing during that time. 

The number of Amoraim who are mentioned in the Talmud 
amounts to several hundreds. The most distinguished among 
them, especially those who presided over the great academies 
are contained in the following chronological tables of the six 
generations of Amoraim.’ 


THE FIRST GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 


§ 20. 

A. Palestinian (219-279). B. Babylonian (219-257). 
1. R. Chanina bar Chama. 1. Abba Areca, called simply 
2. R. Jochanan (bar Napacha) Rab. 

8. R. Simon ben Lakish (Resh | 9, (Mar) Samuel. 
Lakish). 
4, R. Joshua ben Levi. 


Biographical Sketches. 
A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 


During this generation R. Gamaliel III and R. J udah ITI were suc 
cessively the patriarchs. 
1. R. Chanina bar Chama (born about 180, died 260) was a disciple 


of R. Jehuda Hanasi whose son and successor R. Gamaliel III bestowed 


1 Some scholars count the semi-Tanaim as the first generation, 
and have consequently seven instead of six generations. The period of 
Palestinian Amoraim being much shorter than that of the Babylonian, 
ends with the third generation of the latter. Frankel in his woe NY, 
treating especially of the Palestinian Amoraim, divides them also into 
six generations. 


rB, HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


on him the title of Rabbi. He then presided over his own academy in 
Sepphoris and stood in high regard on account cf his learning, modesty 
and piety. As teacher he was very conservative, transmitting that 
only which he had received by tradition, without ever allowing himself 
an independent decision. Of his prominent contemporaries are: R. 
Ephes who reopened aschool at Lydda in South Judea; Levi b. Sissi 
(called simply Levi) who though not presiding over an academy, was a 
distinguished teacher,and later emigrated to Babylonia; further Chizkia 
who was a son of R. Chiya the Elder and whose teachings are fre- 
quently quoted in the Talmud. This Chizkia who had not the title of 
Rabbi must not be mistaken for a R. Chizkia who belonged to the third 
generation. 

2. kk. Jochanan bar Napacha, in general called simply R. Jochanan 
(born about 199; d. 279), was in his early youth a disciple of R. Jehuda 
Hanasi, later of R. Oshaya in Caesarea, also of R. Janai and especially 
of R. Chanina b. Chama. He then founded his own academy in Tiberias 
which henceforth became the principal seat of learning in the holy 
land. By his great mental powers he excelled all his contempuraries 
and is regarded the chief Amora of Palestine. In expounding the 
Mishna he introduced an analytical method, and laid down certain 
rules for the final decision in such cases in which the Tanaim expressed 
opposite opinions. His legal teachings ethical aphorisms, and exegetical 
remarks, transmitted by his numerous disciples, form the principal 
elements of the Gemara. He is supposed to have laid the foundation 
of the Palestinian Talmud, though, in its present shape, this work 
can not have been compiled before at least one century after R. Jocha- 
nan’s death. ! 

3. R. Simon b.Lakish, whose name is generally abbreviated in Resh 
Lakish, was a man who combined great physical strength with a noble 
heart anda powerful mind. It is said, that in his youth, he was com- 
pelled by circumstances to gain his livelihood as a gladiator or soldier 


1 As to further characteristics of this and the other prominent 
Amoraim, the folloving works may be consulted: Graetz, History of 
the Jews, vol. IV; Z. Frankel, Mebo; I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor, vol III; 
I, Hamburger, Real Encyclopédie, vol II. Besides, J. First, ‘‘Kultur 
und Literaturgeschichte der Juden in Asien”, which treats especially 
of the Babylonian academies and teachers during the period of the 
Amoraim. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 48 


until making the acquaintance of R. Jochanan who gained him for the 
study of the law and gave him his sister in marriage. Having devel- 
oped extraordinary mental and dialectical powers, he became R. Jocha- 
nan’s most distinguished friend and colleague. In the interpretation 
of the Mishna and in legal questions they differed however very often, 
and their numerous controversies are reported in the Babylonian Tal- 
mud as well asin the Palestinian. Also in his Agadic teachings, Resh 
Lakish was original and advanced some very rational views. 


4, R. Joshua b. Levi presided over an academy in Lydda. He is 
regarded as a great authority in the law, and lis decisions prevail 
even in cases where his celebrated contemporaries, R. Jochanan and 
Resh Lakish differ from him. Though himself a prolific Agadist, he 
disapproved the vagaries of the Agada and objected to their being 


written down in books. The circunstance that, on a certain occasion, 
his prayer for rain proved to be efficient, probably gave rise to the 
mystic legends with which the fancy of later generation tried to 
illustrate his great piety. 

To other celebrities flourishing in this generations belongs R. 
Simlai of Lydda who later settled in Nahardea. He was reputed less 
as teacher of the Halacha than for his ingenious and lucid method of 
treating the Agada. 

B. BABYLONIAN AMORAIM. 


1. Abba Areca (or Aricha) was the real name of the chief Babyl- 
onian Amora who, by way of eminence, is generally called Rab (the 
teacher). He was born about 175 and died 247. As an orphaned youth 
he went to his uncle the celebrated R/ Chiya in Palestine to finish his 
studies in the academy of R. Jehuda Hanasi. The mental abilities 
which he displayed soon attracted general attention. After the death 
of R. Jehuda, Abba returned to his native country and in the year 
219 founded the academy in Sura where 1200 pupils flocked around 
him from all parts of Babylonia. His authority was recognized even by 
the most celebrated teachers in Palestine. Being regarded as one of 
the semi-Taniim he ventured in some instances even to dispute some 
opinions accepted in the Mishna, a privilege otherwise not accorded to 
any of the Amoraim.! Most of his decisions, especially in ritual 
questions, obtained legal sanction, but in the civil law his friend 


2 bp) Nin Non a, Erubin 50b and often. 


44 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Samuel in Nahardea was his superior!. Over one hundred of his 
numerous disciples, who transmitted his teachings and decisions to 
later generations are mentioned in the Talmud by their names. 

2. Samuel, or Mar Samuel, was born about 180 in Nahardea, died 
there 257. His father, Abba bar Abba, and Levi b. Sissi were his first 
teachers. Like Rab he went to Palestine and became a disciple of 
Rabbi Jehuda Hanasi from whom, however, he could not obt:in the 
ordination. After his return to Nahardea, he succeeded R. Shela in 
the dignity of president of the academy (Resh-Sidra) in that city. 
Besides the law, he cultivated the sciences of medicine and astronomy. 
As Amora he developed especially the rabbinical jurisprudence in 
which he was regarded as the greatest authority 7, Among other import- 
ant principles established by him is that of ‘Dina d’malchutha Dina”, 
that is, the civil law of the government is as valid for the Jews as their 
own law. The most friendly and brotherly relation prevailed between 
Samuel and Rab, although they often differed in questions of the 
law. After Rab’s death (247), his disciples recognized Samuel as the 
highest religious authority of Babylonia. He died about ten years 
later, leaving behind numerous disciples, several of whom became the 
leading teachers in the following generation. 

A distinguished contemporary of Samuel was Mar Ukba, at first 
head of the court in Kafri, and later Exilarch in Naharde... 


1 pa Syywsr ona a9 xnabn Bechoroth 49b. 

* Mar Samuel made also acompilation of Baraithoth which is 
quoted inthe Talmud by the phrase Sew IIT NIN. Betza 29a and 
Moed Katon 18b; see Rashi’s remark to the first mentioned passage. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 45 


THE SECOND GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 


§ 21. 

A. Palestinian (279-320) B. Babylonian (257-320). 
t. R. Elazar b. Pedath. 1. Rab Huna. 
2. R. Ame. 2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel. 
es “ mae anctenr 3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda). 
4. R. Chiya bar a. 
5. Simon bar Abba. 1 ARE ele at 
6. R. Abbahu. 5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob. 
ie 


R. Zera (Zeira). 
Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 


A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 


The patriarchate during this generation was successively in the 
hands of R. Gamaliel IV and R. Judah III. 

1. R. Elazar ben Peduth, generally called simp'y R. Elazar, like 
the Tana R. Elazar (ben Shamua) for whom he must not be mistaken, 
was a native of Babylonia and a disciple and later an associate of R. 
Jochanan whom herurvived. He enjoyed great authority and is very 
often quoted in the Talmud. 

9 and 3. R. Ame and R. Assi were likewise Babylonians, and 
distinguished disciples of R. Jochanan. After the death of R. Elazar 
they became the heads of the declining academy in Tiberias. They 
had the title only of ,,Judges, or the Aaronites of the Holy Land” and 
subordinated themselves to the growing authority of the teachers in 
Babylonia, Rabbi Assi is not to be confoundend with his contempor- 
ary, the Babylonian Amora Rab Assi, who was a colleague of Rab 
Saphra and a disciple of Rab in Sura. ? 

4 and 5. R. Chiya bar Abba and Simon bar Abba were probably 
brothers. They had immigrated from Babylonia and became disci 
ples of R. Jochanan. Foth were distinguished teachers, but very poor. 
In questions of the law they were inclined to rigorous views. 

6. R. Abbahu of Caesarea, disciple of R. Jochanan, friend and 
colleague of R. Ame and R. Assi, was a man of great wealth and of 
a liberal education. Hehad a thorough knowledge of the Greek 


1 See Tosaphoth Chullin 19a, 


46 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


language, and favored Greek culture. Being held in high esteem by the 
Roman authorities, he had great political influence. He seems to have 
had frequent controversies with the teachers of Christianity in 
Caesarea. Besides being a prominent teacher whose legal opinions are 
quoted in all parts of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmud, he was a 
very popular lecturer. ; 

7. R. Zeira (or Zera) was a Babylonian and adisciple of Rab Juda bar 
Jecheskel, but dissatisfied with the hair splitting method prevailing in 
the academies of his native country, he emigrated to Palestine where 
he attended the lectures of R. Elazar b. Pedath in Tiberias, and tried, 
in vain, to unlearn his former method of study. Having been ordained 
as Rabbi, he became one of the authorities in Palestine together with 
R. Ame, R. Assi and R. Abbahu. 


B. BABYLONIAN AMORAIM. 


1. Rab Huna (born 212, died 297) was a disciple of Rab, whom, 
after Mar Sa1ouel’s death. he succeeded as president of the academy in 
Sura. In this office he was active for forty years. He employed fifteen 
assistants to repeat and explain his lectures to his 800 disciples. 
Highly revered for his great learning and his noble character,he enjoyed 
an undisputed authority to which even the Palestinian teachers R. Ame 
and R. Assi voluntarily subordinated themselves. | 

2. Rab Juda bar Jecheskel, generally called simply R. Juda 
(or Jehuda), was a disciple of Rab and also of Samuel. The latter 
teacher, whose peculiar method he adopted and developed, used to 
characterize him by the epithet Now “the acute”. He founded the 
academy in Pumbaditha, but after R. Huna’s death he was chosen as 
his successor (Resh Methibta) at Sura, where after two years (299) he 
died in an advanced age. 

3. Rab Chisda (or Chasda) belonged to the younger disciples of 
Rab after whose death he attended also the lectures of R. Huna. But 
from the latter teacher he soon separated on account of a misunder- 
standing between them and established a school of his own, At the 
same time, he was one of the Judgesin Sura. After Rab Juda’s death 
R. Chisda, though already above 80 years old, became head of the 
academy in Sura and remained in this office for about ten years 

4, Rab Shesheth, a disciple of Rab and Samuel, was member of 
the court in Nahardea. After the destruction of that city he went to 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA, AT 


Mechuza; later he settled in Silhi where he founded an academy. 
Being blind, he had to rely upon his powerful memory. He was 
R. Chisda’s opponent in the Halacha, and disapproved the hair splitting 
dialectical method which had come in vogue among the followers of 
Rab Juda in Pumbaditha. 

5. Rab Nachman b. Jacob, called simply Rab Nachman, was a 
prominent disciple of Mar Samuel. By his father-in-law, the exilarch 
Abba bar Abuha, he was appointed chief justice in Nahardea. After 
Mar Samuel’s death he succeeded him as rector of the academy in that 
city. When two years later (259) the city of Nahardea was destroyed, 
R. Nachman settled in Shechan-Zib. He is regarded as a great 
authority especially in the rabbinical jurisprudence in which he 
established many important principles. Among others, he originated 
the rabbinical oath termed n>‘7 Nnyiay, that is, the purging oath 
imposed ina law suit on the claimee even in cases of general denial 
on his part (S27 4p)9). 

Of other teachers belonging to this generation who, though not 
standing at the head of the leading academies, are often quoted in 
the Talmud, the following must be noted: 

a. Rabba bar bar Chana who was aBabylonian and son of Abba 
bar Chana. After having attended the academy of R. Jochanan in 
Palestine, he returned to his native country where he frequently 
reported the opinions of his great teacher. Heisalso noted for the 
many allegorical narratives ascribed to him in the Talmud. 

b. Ulla (b. Ishmael) was a Palestinian who frequently travelled 
to Babylonia where he finally settled and died. Although without the 
title of Rabbi or Rab, he was regarded as a distinguished teacher whose 
opinions and reports are often mentioned. 


48 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


THE THIRD GENERATION OF AMORAIM. 





Sa) 
A. Palestinian (320-359). | 3B. Babylonian (320-375). 

1. R. Jeremiah. } 1. Rabba bar Huna. 
2. R. Jonah. 2. Rabba bar Nachmani. 

3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya). 
3. R. Jose. AL Nee 

5. Raba. 

6. Rab Nachman bar Isaac. 

7. Rab Papa. 





Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 
A. PALESTINIAN AMORAIM. 


The patriarch of this period was Hillel II who introduced the fixed 
Jewish calendar. 


In consequence of the persecutions and the banishment of several 
religious teachers under the emperors Constantin and Constantius, the 
Palestinian academies entirely decayed. The only teachers of some 
prominence are the following: 


1. &. Jeremiah was a Babylonian and disciple of R. Zeira whom 
he followed to Palestine. In his younger days, when still in his native 
country, he indulged in propounding puzzling questions of trifling 
casuistry by which he probably intended to ridicule the subtile method 
prevailing among some of the contemporary teachers, and on this 
account he was expelled from the academy. In the holy land he was 
more appreciated and after the death of R. Abbahu and R. Zeira was 
acknowledged as the only authority in that country. 

2. R. Jonah was a disciple of R. Ila (Hila) and of R. Jeremiah. 
His opinions are frequently quoted especially in the Palestinian Tal- 
mud. 

3. KR. Jose (bar Zabda), colleague of the just mentioned R. Jonah, 
was one of the last rabbinical authorities in Palestine. 

It is probable that the compilation of the Palestinian Talmud 
was accomplished about that time, though it cannot be stated by whom. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 49 


B. Babylonian Amoraim. 


1. Rabba (or Rab Abba) bar Huna was not, as erroneously 
supposed by some, the son of the exilarch Huna Mari, but of Rab 
Huna, the disciple and successor of Rab. After the death of Kk. Chisda 
(309) he succeeded him in the dignity of president of the academy in 
Sura. Under his presidency, lasting 13 years, this academy was 
eclipsed by that of Pumbaditha, and after his death it remained deserted 
for about fifty years until Rab Ashe restored it to its former glory. 

2. Rabba bar Nachmani, in the Talmud called simply Rabba, was 
born 270 and died 330. He was a disciple of Rab Huna, Rab Juda and 

tab Chisda, and displayed from his youth great dialectical powers on 
accountof which he was characterized as ‘‘the uprooter of mountains’. 
Selected as head of the academy of Pumbaditha, he attracted large 
crowds of hearers by his ingenious method of teaching. In his lectures 
which commented on all parts of the Mishna he investigated the 
reason of the laws and made therefrom logical deductions. Besides, 
he tried to reconcile seeming differences between the Mishna, the 
Baraithoth and the traditional teachings of later authorities. He also 
liked to propound puzzling problems of the law in order to test and 
sharpen the mental powers of his disciples. A charge having been 
made against him by the Persian government that many of his 
numerous hearers attended his lectures in order to evade the poll-tax, 
he fled from Pumbaditha and died in sclitude. 

3. Rab Joseph (bar Chiya) was a disciple of Rab Juda and Rab 
Shesheth, and succeeded his friend Rabba in the dignity of president 
of the academy in Pumbadita, after having once before been elected 
for this office which he declined in favor of Rabba. On account of his 
thorough knowledge of the sources of the Law, to which he attached 
more importance than to ingenious deductions, he was called Sinaz. 
Besides being a great authority in the rabbinical law, he devoted 
himself to the Targum of the Bibie, especially of the prophetical books. 
In his old age he became blind. He died in the year 333 after having 
presided over the academy of Pum)aditha only for three years. 

4. Abaye, surnamed Nachmani(b. 280. d. 338), wasason Kaylil 
and a pupilof his uncle Rabba bar Nachmani, and of Rab Joseph. He 
was highly esteemed not only for his profound knowledge of the law 
and bis mastership in Talmudical dialectics, but also for his integrity 


50 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


and gentleness. After Rab Joseph’s death he was selected as head of 
the academy in Pumbaditha, but under his administration which lasted 
about five years, the number of hearers in that academy decreased 
considerably, as his more talented colleague Raba had founded a new 
academy in Machuza which attracted greater crowds of pupils. 
Under these two Amoraim the dialectical method of the Babylonian 
teachers reached the highest development. Their discussions, which 
mostly concern some very nice distinctions in the interpretation of the 
Mishna in order to reconcile conflicting passages, fill the pages of the 
Talmud.! In their differences concerning more practical questions 
the opinion of Raba generally prevails, so that later authorities 
pointed out only six cases in which the decision of Abaye was to be 
adopted against that of his rival. ? 


5. Raba was the son of Joseph b. Chama in Machuza. He was 
born 299 and died 852. In his youth he attended the lectures of Rab 
Nachman and of R. Chisda, Later, he and Abaye were fellow-students 
in the academy of Rabba bar Nachmani. Here he developed his 
dialectical powers by which he soon surpassed all his contemporaries. 
He opened an academy in Machuza which attracted a great number of 
students. After Abaye’s death this academy supplanted that in Pumba- 
ditha and during Raba’s lifetime became almost the only seat of learn- 
ing in Babylonia. His controversies with his contemporaries, especially 
with his rival colleague Abaye, are very numerous. Wherever an 
opinion of Abaye is recorded in the Talmud, it is almost always fol- 
lowed by the contrary view and argument of Raba. 

6.kab Nachnan b. Isaac was a disciple of Rab Nachman (b. 
Jacob) and afterwards an officer as Resh Callain the academy of 
Raba. After the death of the latter he was made president of the 
academy in Pumbaditha which now resumed its former rank. In this 
capacity he remained only four years (852-56) and left no remarkable 
traces of his activity. Still less significant was the activity of his 


1 The often very subtile argumentations of these two teachers 
became so proverbial that the phrase No) YONI ny “the critical 
questions of Abaye and Raba” is used in the Talmud as a signification 
of acute discussions and minute investigations, so in Succah 28a. 


aD a0 Gi yiiyg YONT MND xnobn Baba Metzia 21b; Sanhedrin 
27a; Erubin 15a; Kidd. 52a; Gittin 34a. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 51 


successor R. Chama from Nahardea who held the office for twenty one 
years (3856-377). 

7%. Rab Papa (bar Chanan),a disciple of Abaye and Raba, founded 
a new school in Nares, in the vicinity of Sura, over which he presided 
for nineteen years (354-375). He adopted the dialectical method of his 
former teachers without possessing their ingenuity and their inde- 
pendence, and consequently did not give satisfaction to those of his 
hearers who had formerly attended the lectures of Raba. One of 
his peculiarities was that he frequently refers to popular proverbs 
CWITN MUN). 


THE FOURTH GENBRATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM (375-427). 


\ 


§ 23. 
. Pumbaditha. CG. Nahardea. 


Rab Zebid. Amemar, 
Rab Dime. 

Rafram. 

Rab Cahana. 

Mar Zutra. 


A. Sura. 
1. Rab Ashe. 


hae eke och daw ho 


Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 


A. Rab Ashe, (son of Simaibar Ashe) was, at the age of twenty, 
made president of the reopened academy of Sura, after the death 
of Rab Papa, and held this office for fifty two years. Under his 
presidency, this academy, which had been deserted since the time of 
Rabba bar Huna,regained its former glory with which Rab had invested 
it. Combining the profundity of knowledge which formerly prevailed 
in thisacademy with the dialectic methods developed in that of Pumba- 
ditha, he was generally recognized as the ruling authority, so that his 
contemporaries called him by the distinguishing title of Rabbana (our 
teacher). Invested with this great authority, Rab Ashe was enabled 





1 This Rab Papa must not be mistaken for an elder teacher by 
the same name, who had ten sons, all well versed in the law, one of 
whom, Rafram, became head of the academy of Pumbaditha in the 
following generation. Neither is Rab Papa identical with Rab Papi, 
a distinguished lawyer who flourished in a former generation. 


52 HSTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


to assume the task of sifting, arranging and compiling the immense 
material of traditions, commentaries and discussions on the Mishna 
which, during the two preceding centuries, had accumulated in the 
Babylonian academies. In thecompilation and revision of this gigantic 
work which is embodied in the Gemara, he was occupied for over 
half a century, and still he did not complete it entirely but this was 
done, after his death, by his disciples and successors. 


B. During the long period of Rab Ashe’s activity at the academy 
in Sura, the following teachers presided successively over the academy 
in Pumbaditha. 


1. Rab Zebid (b. Oshaya) who succeeded Rab Chama and held 
the office for eight years. (877-385). 


2. kab Dime (b. Chinena) from Nahardea, presiding only for 
three years (885-388). 


3. Rafram bar Papa the elder, in his youth a disciple of Raba, 
succeeded R. Dime (888-894), 


4. Rab Cahana (b. Tachlifa), likewise a disciple of Raba, was 
one of the former teachers of R. Ashe. In an already advanced age 
he was made president of the academy of Pumbaditha, and died in the 
year 411. This Rab Cahana must not be mistaken for two other 
teachers of the same name, one of whom had been a distinguished 
disciple of Rab, and the other (Rab Cahana b. Manyome) a disciple of 
Rab Juda b. Jecheskel. 


5. Mar Zutra who, according to some historians, succeeded Rab 
Cahana as rector of the school in Pumbaditha (411-414) is probably 
identical with Mar Zutra b. Mare, who shortly afterwards held the 
high office as Exilarch. In the rectorship of Pumbaditha he was suc_ 
ceeded by Rab Acha bar Raba (414-419): and the latter by Rab Gebiha 
(419-433). 


C. Amemar, a friend of Rab Ashe, was a distinguished judge 
and teacher in Nahardea. When his former teacher Rab Dime became 
president of the academy in Pumbiditha, he succeeded him in the rector- 
ship of that of Nahardea from 390 to about 422. With him this once 
so celebrated seat of learning passed out of existence. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. . 53 


THE FIFTH GENERATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM (427-468). 


§ 24. 
Ay Sura. B. Pumbaditha. 
1. Mar Jemar (Maremar). 1. Rafram II. 
2. Rab Ide bar Abin. 9. Rechumai. 
3. Mar bar Rab Ashe. 3. Rab Sama b. Rabba. 
4. Rab Acha of Difte. 


Remarks and Biographical Sketches. 


A. 1. Mar Jemar (contracted to Maremar), who enjoyed high 
esteem with the leading teachers of his time, succeeded his colleague 
and friend Rab Ashe in the presidency of the academy in Sura, but 
held this office only for about five years (427-482). 

5. Rab Ide (or Ada) bar Abin became, after Mar Jemar’s death, 
president of the academy at Sura and held this office for about twenty 
years (432-452). Heas well as his predecessor continued the compilation 
of the Talmud which Rab Ashe had commenced. 

3. Mar bar Rab Ashe, whose surname was Tabyome, and who, 
for some unknown reasons, had been passed over in the election of a 
successor to his father, was finally made president of the academy in 
Sura and filled this office for thirtcen years (455-468). In his frequent 
discussions with contemporary authorities he exhibits independence of 
opinion and great faculties of mind. | 

4. Rab Acha of Difte, a prominent teacher, was onthe point of 
being elected as head of the academy of Sura, but was finally defeated 
by Mar bar Rab Ashe who aspired to that office which his father had 
so gloriously filled for more than half a century. 

B. The academy of Pumbaditha which had lost its earlier influence, 
had during this generation successively three presidents, of whose 
activity very little is known, namely: 

1. Rafram II who succeeded Rab Gebihah, from 433 to 448. 

2, Rav Rechumai, from 443-456. 

3. Rab Sama b. Rabba, from 456-471. 

Toward the end of this generation, the activity of both academies 
was almost paralyzed by the terrible persecutions which the Persian 
King Firuz instituted against the Jews and their religion. 


54 ; HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


THE SIXTH AND LAST GENERATION OF BABYLONIAN AMORAIM 


(468-500). 
§ 25. 
A. Sura. B. Pumbaditha. 
1. Rabba Thospia (or'Tosfaah), Rab Jose. “ 


9. Rabina. 


Remarks and Biographical Sketches, 


A. 1. Rabba of Thospia' succeeded Mar bar Rab Ashi as recto. 
of the Suran academy just at the time when the Persian King Firuz 
had ordered the Jewish jurisdiction to be abolished and the academical 
assemblies to be prohibited. It is but natural that under such circum- 
stances the academical activity of this Rabbi which lasted only about 
six years could not amount to much. 

2. Rabina (contraction of Rab Abina) bar Huna,? who succeeded 
Rabba of Thospia, entered his office which he held from 488 to 499. 
under more favorable circumstances, since the persecution had ceased 
after the death of Firuz and the academies were reopened. He conse- 
quently developed a great activity, the object of which was to complete 
and close the compilation of the Talmud begun by Rab Ashi. In this 
task he was assisted by Rab Jose, the school head of Pumbaditha,and 
by some associates. 

With the close of the Talmud and the death of Rabina (499) ended 
the period of the Amoraim. The Babylonian teachers who flourished 
during the subsequent half century are cailed Saboraim (Kn3D 133). 
They did not assume the authority to contradict the decisions established 
by the Amoraim, but merely ventured to express an opinion (7425, to 
reason, think, suppose, opine) and to fix the final decision in cases where 


1 Regarding the correct name and native place of this Rabbi see 
Leopold Léw’s ‘‘Lebensalter” p. 376, note 54, and Neubauer Géogr. 
du Talm., p. 382. 

2 This head of the Suran Academy is by, chronographers usually cal- 
led Rabina II, in order to distinguish him from a former teacher Rabina 
who was a disciple of Raba and flourished in the fourth generation. 
In the Talmud, both of them are called simply Rabina, and only from 
the connection it is to be seen whether it refers to that elder teacher 
or to the last of the Amoraim. 


THE EXPOUNDERS OF THE MISHNA. 55 


their predecessors, the Amoraim, disagreed. They gave the Talmud 
a finishing touch by adding those final decisions, also numerous, 
especially Agadic, passages. | 

B. Rab Jose presided over the academy in Pumbaditha 475-520. 
As Rabina was the last Amora for Sura, so Rab Jose was the last for 
Pumbaditha. Flourishing still for anumber of years after the close of 
“the Talmud,he was at the same time the first of the Saboraim,and must 
be considered as the most prominent among them. 

Of Rab Jose’s contemporaries and successors who like himself 
formed the connecting link between the period of Amoraim and that 
of the Saboraim, and whose opinions and controversies are still recorded 
in the Talmud, the following two must be mentioned: Rab Achai b. 
Huna and Rab Sumuel b. Abbahw 


CHAPTER, V. 
whe bi Geka ASR eA 


CLASSIFICATION OF ITS CONTENTS INTO HALACHA AND AGADA.. 
§ 26. 

Tne collection of the commentaries and discussions of the 
Amoraim on the Mishnaistermed Gemara. This term, derived 
from the verb 993 which in Hebrew means / finish, to complete, 
and in the Aramaic also Zo learn, to teach, signifies either the 
completion, the supplement (to the Mishna), or is identical with 
the word Za/mud which is often used in its place, meaning, the 
teaching, the study. 

Besides being a discursive commentary on the Mishna, the 
Gemara contains a vast amount of more or less valuable mate- 
rial which does not always have any close connection with the 
Mishna text, as legal reports, historical and biographical infor- 
mations, religious and ethical maxims and homiletical remarks. 

The whole subject matter embodied in the Gemara is 
generally classified into Halacha and Agada. 

To Halacha* belongs that which has bearing upon tne law, 
hence all expositions, discussions and reports which have the 
object of explaining, establishing and determining legal princip- 
les and provisions. The principal branches of the Halacha are 
indicated by the names of the six divisions of the Mishna, and 
by those of the Masechtoth belonging to each division. See 
above pages 9-14. 

The Agada* comprises every thing not having the character 


1 Halacha (nzbn) means custom, usage practice; then, an 
adopted rule, a traditional law. In a more extended meaning, the 
term applies to matters bearing upon that law. 

2 Agada or Aggada (A7IN ;> RNIN ,7WI3n, derived from 43) which 
ju the Hebrew Hiphil or Aramaic Aphel form signifies to narrate, to 
tell, to communicate) means that which is related, a tale, a saying, an 
individual utterance which claims no binding authority. Regarding 
this term, see W. Bacher’s learned and exhaustive article, “The origin 
of the word Hagada (Agada)” in the Jewish Quarterly Review (London) 


THE GEMARA, 57 


of Halacha, hence all historical records, all legends and par- 
ables, all doctrinal and ethical teachings and all free and unre- 
strained interpretations of Scripture. 


According to its different contents and character, the 
Agada may be divided into: 


1. Lxegetical Agada, giving plain or homiletical and al- 
legorical explanations of Biblical passages. 

2. Dogmatical Agada, treating of God’s attrributes and 
providence, of creation, of revelation, of reward and punishment, 
of future life, of Messianic time, ete. | 

3. Ethical Agada, containing aphorisms, maxims, proverbs, 
fables, sayings intending to teach and illustrate certain moral 
duties. ; 

4. Historical Agada, reporting traditions and legends 
concerning the lives of biblical and post-biblical persons or con- 
cerning national and general history. 

5. Mystical Agada, refering to Cabala, angelology, demo- 
nology, astrology, magical cures, interpretation of dreams, ete. 

6. Miscellaneous Agada, containing anecdotes, observa- 
tions, practical advices, and occassional references to various 
branches of ancient knowledge and sciences. 


Agadic passages are often, by the way, interspersed among 
matters of Halacha, as a kind of diversion and recreation after 
the mental exertion of a tiresome investigation or a minute dis- 
cussion ona dry legal subject. Sometimes, however, the Agada 
appears in larger groups, outweighing the Halacha matter 
with which it is loosely connected; f. i. Berachoth, 54a—64a; 
Sabbath 30a—-33b; Megilla 10b-17a; Gittin 55b-58b; 67b—T0a; 
Sota 9a-14a; B. Bathra 14b-17a; 73a—76a; Sanhedrin, Perek 
Chelek. 

There are two compilations of the Gemara which differ from 
each other in language as well as in contents; the one made in 
Palestine is called /erushaimi, the Jerusalem Gemara or Talmud; 


VolIV, pp. 496-429. As to fuller particulars concerning Halacha and 
Agada, see Zunz’ G. Vortraege pp. 57-61 and 83 sq.; also Hamburger’s 
Real Encyclopidie II, the articles Halacha and Agada, 


58 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 
the other originating in Babylonia is called Bad/, the Baby- 
lonianGemara or Talmud: 
COMPILATION OF JERUSHALMI, 'THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD. 
Sai 

As no academy existed in Jerusalem after the destruction 
of the second temple, the customary appellation Jerusalem Tal- 
mud is rather a misnomer. More correct is the appellation the 
Palestinian Talmud (Oxnw> yx 71p9N) or the Gemara of the 
teachers of the West (NS5y 9337 N73). 

Maimonides in the introduction to his Mishna commentary 
ascribes the authorship of the Palestinian Talmud to the celebrat- 
ed teacher R. Jochanan who flourished in the third century. 
This statement, if literally taken, cannot be correct, since so 
many of the teachers quoted in that Talmud are known to have 
flourished more than a hundred years after R. Jochanan, This 
celebrated Amora may, at the utmost, have given the first 
impulse to such a colleetion of commentaries and discussions on 
the Mishna, which was continued and completed by his succes- 
sorsin the academy of Tiberias. In its present shape the work 
is supposed to belong to the fourth or fifth century. Some modern 
scholars assign its final compilation even to a still later period 
namely after the close of the Babylonian Talmud. 3 

The Palestinian Gemara, as before us, extends only over 
thirty nine of the sixty three Masechtoth contained in the 
Mishna, namelly all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, Seder Moed, 
Nashim and Nezikin with the exception of Eduyoth and Aboth. 
But it has none of the Masechtoth belonging to Seder Kodashim, 
and of those belonging to Seder Teharoth it treats only of Ma- 
secheth Nidda. (see above pages 12-14). 

Some of its Masechtoth are defective; thus the last four 


1 Critical researches on this subject are found in Geiger’s Jued. 
Zeitschrift f. Wissenschaft 1870; Z. Frankel Mebo, p. 46 sq. and in 
Wiesner’s Gibeath Jeruschalaim (Vienna 1872). 


I. H. Weiss (Dor Dor III, p. 114 sq.) regards R. Jose (bar Zabda) who 
was a colleague of R. Jonah and one of the last authorities in Palestine, 
as the very compiler of the Pal. Talmud which in the following 
generation was completed by R. Jose bar Bun (Abun). 


THE GEMARA 59 


Perakim of Sabbath and the last Perek of Maccoth are wanting. 
Of the ten Perakim belonging to Masecheth Nidda it has only 
the first three Perakim and a few lines of the fourth. 

There are some indications that elder commentators were 
acquainted with portions of the Palestinian Gemara which are 
now missing, and it is very probable that that Gemara origin- 
ally extended to all or, at least, to most of the Masechtoth of 
the Mishna. The loss of the missing Masechtoth and portions 
thereof may be explained partly by the many persecutions which 
interrupted the activity of the Palestinian academies, partly by 
the circumstance that the Pelestinian Gemara did not command 
that general attention and veneration which was bestowed on 
the Babylonian Gemara. 


CoMPILATION OF BABLI, THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
§ 28. 


The compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is generally as- 
cribed to Rab Ashe who for more than fifty years (375-427) 
officiated as head of the academy in Sura. It is stated that it 
took him about thirty years to collect, sift and arrange the im- 
mense material of this gigantic work. During the remaining 
second half ofhis activity he revised once more the whole work 
and made in it many corrections. This corrected edition is 
termed SAND SWI the latter revision, and the former SITS 
sop the frst reviszon, ' 

1 See Baba Bathra fol 157b. 

Those scholars who maintain that the Mishna was not written 
down by R. Jehuda Hanasi, but that he merely arranged it orally 
(see above p. 5, note), maintain the same in regard to Rab Ashe’s 
compilation of the Gemara, without being able to state when and by 
whom it was actually commited to writing. Against this opinion it 
has been properly argued that it must be regarded as absolutely 
impossible for a work so voluminous, so variegated in contents and so 
full of minute and intricate discussions, as the Talmud, to have been 
orally arranged and fixed, and accurately transmitted from generation 
to generation. On the strength of this argument and of some in- 
dications found inthe Talmud, Z. Frankel (in his Mebo p. 47) even 
regards itas very probable that Rab Ashe in compiling the Gemara 


a 
made use of some minor compilations which existed before him, and 
of some written records and memoranda containing short abstracts 
of the academical discussions in the preceding generations. Collecting 


60 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


But Rab Ashe did not succeed in finishing the gigantic 
work. It was continued and completed by his disciples and 
successors, especially by the last Amoraim Rabina II who from 
488 to 499 presided over the academy in Sura, and R. Jose, the 
school-head of Pumbaditha. Some additions were made by the 
Saboraim, and perhaps even by some still later hands. 

The Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud covers only thirty 
seven Masechtoth of the Mishna, namely: 

Of Zeraim only one, Berachoth, ommitting the remaining 
ten Masechtoth; 

Of Moed eleven, omitting only Shekalim which in our 
Talmud editions is replaced by the Palestinian Gemara; 

Of Nashim all of the seven Masechtoth beloning to that 
division; 

Of Nezikin eight, omitting Eduyoth and Aboth; 

Of Kodashim nine, omitting Middoth and Kinnim. In 
Thamid only chapters I. I. IV are provided with Gemara, but 
not chapters III. V. VI and VII. 

Of Teharoth only Nidda; omitting eleven Masechtoth. 

There being no traces of the Gemara missing to twenty six 
Masechtoth, it is very probable that this part of the Gemara 
has never been compiled, though those Masechtoth have un- 
doubtedly also been discussed by the Babylonian Amoraim, as is 
evident from frequent references to them in the Gemara on the 
other Masechtoth. The neglect of compiling these discussions 
may be explained by the circumstance that those Masechtoth 
mostly treat of laws which had no practical application outside 
of Palestine. This is especially the case with the Masechtoth 
of Zeraim, except Berachoth, and those of Teharoth, except 


and arranging these records he partly enlarged them by fuller explan- 
ations, partly left them just as he found them. Some traces of such 
memoranda, made probably by R Ashe’s predecessors, are still found in 
numerous passages of the Talmud. We refer to the mnemonical 
signs and symbo.s (0°39'D) which every now and then are there met 
with (in brackets) as headings of discussions and indicating either the 
names of the teachers to be quoted or the order of the subjects to 
be discussed. A critdcal investigation ,on these often very enigmatic 
Simanim is found in Jacob Briill’s xy) waa Die Mnemotechnik des 
Talmuds (Vienna 1864). 


THE GEMARA. 6] 


Nidda. It was different with the Masechtoth belonging to 
Kodashim which,though treating of the sacrificial laws, are fully 
discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, as it was a prevailing 
opinion of the Rabbis that the merit of being engaged with the 
study of those laws was tantamount to the actual performance 
of the sacrificial rites (See Talm. Menachoth 110a). 

The absence of Gemara on the Masechtoth Eduyoth and 
Aboth is easily accounted for by the very nature of their 
contents which admitted of no discussions. 

THE TWO GEMARAS COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER. 
§ 29. 


The Palestinian and the Babylonian Gemaras differ from each 
other in language and style as well as in material and in the 
method of treating the same, also in arrangement. 

As regards the language, the Palestinian Gemara is 
composed in the West Aramaic dialect which prevailed in Pa- 
lestine at the time of the Amoraim. 

The language of the Babylonian Gemara is a peculiar idiom, 
being amixture of Hebrew and East Aramaic with an occasional 
sprinkling of Persian words. Quotations from Mishna and 
Baraitha and sayings of the elder Amoraim are given in the 
original, that is, the New Hebrew (Mishnic) language, while 
forms of judicial and notary documents and popular legends of 
later origin are often given in the Aramaic idiom. 

Although the Palestinian Gemara extends to two more Ma- 
sechtoth than the Babylonian, its total material amounts only 
to about one third of the latter. Its discussions are generally 
very brief and condensed, and do not exhibit that dialectic 
acumen for which the Babylonian Gemara is noted. The Agada 
in the Palestinian Gemara includes more reliable and valuable 
historical records and references, and is, on the whole, more 
rational and sober, though less attractive than the Babylonian 
Agada which generally appeals more to the heart and imagin- 
ation. But the latter, on many occasions, indulges too much 
in gross exaggerations, and its popular sayings, especially those 
evidently interpolated by later hands, have often an admixture 
of superstitious views borrowed from the Persian surroundings. 


62 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


The arrangement of the material in the two Talmuds dif- 
fers in this, that in the Babylonian, the Gemarais attached to 
the single paragraphs (Nm3np) of the Mishna, while in the 
Palestinian all paragraphs (there termed miz57) belonging to 
one Perek of the Mishna, are generally placed together at the 
head of each chapter. The comments and discussions of the 
Gemara referring to the successive paragraphs, are then marked 
by the headings ’s n55m ‘3 755m and so on. 

The two Gemara collections make no direct mention of 
each other as literary works. But the names and opinions of 
the Palestinian authorities are very often quoted in the Babyl- 
onian Gemara; and in a similar way, though not to the same 
extent, the Palestinian Gemara mentions the views of the Bab- 
ylonian authorities. This exchange of opinions was effected 
by the numerous teachers who are known to have emigrated or 
frequently travelled from the one country to the other. 

The study of the Babylonian Talmud, having been trans- 
planted from its native soil to North Africa, andthe European 
countries (especially Spain, France, Germany and Poland), was 
there most sedulously and religiously cultivated in the Jewish 
communities,and gave rise to an immense Rabbinical literature. 
The Palestinian Talmud never enjoyed such general veneration 
andattention. Eminent Rabbis alone were thoroughly convers- 
ant with its contents,and referred to it in their writings. It is 
only in modern times that Jewish scholars have come to devote 
more attention to this Talmud, for the purpose of historical and 
literary investigations. 


CHAPTER V1. 
APOCRYPHAL APPENDICES TO THE TALMUD. 
§ 30. 


Besides the Masechtoth contained in the Mishna and the 
two Gemaras, there are several Masechtoth composed in the 
form of the Mishna and Tosephta, that treat of ethical, ritual, 
and liturgical precepts. They stand in the same relation to 
the Talmud as the Apocrypha to the canonical books of the 
Bible. When and by whom they were composed, cannot be as- 
certained. Of these apocryphal treatises, the following are ap- 
pended to our editions of the Talmud: 

1. Abothd Rabbit Nathan 3 1397 Nias, divided into 41 
chapters and a kind of Tosephta to the Mishnic treatise 
‘‘Pirke Aboth,” the ethical sentences of which are here con 
siderably enlarged and illustrated by numerous narratives. In 
its present shape, it belongs to the post—Talmudic period, though 
some elements of a Baraitha of R. Nathan (who was a Tana 
belonging to the fourth generation) may have been embodied 


therein.’ 


2. Sopherim DO 21D the Scribes, containing in 21chapters rules 
for the writing of the scrolls of the Pentateuch,and of the book 
of Esther ; also Masoretic rules, and liturgical rules for the ser- 
vice on Sabbath, Feast and Fast days. R. Asher already 
expressed (in his Hilchoth Sepher Thora) the opinion that this 
Masecheth Sopherim belongs to the period of the Gaonim.? 





1 Compare Zunz, Gottesd. Vortraege, p. 108, sq.—Solomon Taussig 
published in his ody m3 (Munich 1872) from a Manuscript of the 
Library in Munich a recension of the Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan which 
differs considerably from that printed in our Talmud editions. The 
latest edition of Aboth d. R. N. in tworecensions from MSS, with 
critical annotations was published by 8. Schechter (Vienna 1887). 

2 See Zunz, GD. V. p. 95, sq. The latest separate edition of Ma- 
secheth Sopherim from a MS. and with a German commentary 
was published by Joel Mueller, (Leipsic 1878). 


64 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


8. Ebel Rabbathi sz 5a (the large treatise on Mourn- 
ing), euphemistically called minzw Semachoth (Joys), is 
divided into 14 chapters, and treats, as indicated by the title, 
of rules and customs concerning burial and mourning. It is 
not identical with a treatise under the same title, quoted already 
in the Talmud (Moed Katon 24a; 26a; Kethuboth 28a), but 
seems to be rather areproduction ofthe same with later additions. ') 

4. Callah 755 (the bride, the woman recently married). 
This minor Masechta, being likewise a reproduction of a Masechta 
by that name, mentioned already in the Talmund (Sabbath 114 a; 
Taanith 10b; Kiddushin 49b; Jer. Berachoth, II, 5.), treats 
in one chapter of the duties of chastity in marriage and in 
general. 

5. Derech Eretz yx 777 (the conduct of life), divided 
into 11 chapters, the first of which treats of prohibited mar- 
riages,and the remaining chapters, of ethical, social and religious 
teachings. References to a treatise by that name, are made 
already in the Talmud (B. Berachoth 22a and Jer. Sabbath 
Viloe2o) ? 

6. Derech Eretz Zuta Noy prs WI (the conduct of 
life, minor treatise), containing 10 chapters, replete with 
rules and maxims of wisdom.’ 

1. Perek Ha-shalom py wn pr (chapter on Peace) consists, 
us already indicated by the title, only of one chapter, treating 
of the importance of peacefulness. 

Remark :—Beside these apocryphal treatises appended to our 
editions of the Talmud under the general title of miwp ninso2 
‘¢Minor Treatises,” there are seven lesser Masechtoth which 
were published by Raphael Kirchheim from an ancient manu- 
script. (Frankfort on the Main 1851.) 


1 See Zunz, G. V. p. $0, and N. Brill ‘‘Die talm. Tractate tiber 
Trauer um Verstorbene (Jahrbicher fiir Jiid. Geschichte und Litera- 
tur I (Frankfurt a. M.) p. 1-57. M. Klotz just published ‘‘Der Talm. 
Tractat Ebel Rabbathi nach Handschriften bearbeitet, iiberzetzt und 
mit Anmerkungen versehen” Frankf. on the Main, 1892. 


2 On both of these Masechtoth Derech Eretz see Zunz GD. V. 
pp. 110-112. See also: Abr. Tawrogi ‘‘Der Talm. Tractat Derech Erez 
Sutta Kritisch bearbeitet, ibersetzt und erlautert”? (Berlin 1885), 


CHAPTER VII. 
COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 


THE NECESSITY FOR SUCH COMMENTARIES. 
§ 31. 


The Talmud offers to its students great difficulties, partly 
on account of the peculiar idiom in which it is written and which 
is intermixed with so numerous, often very mutilated, foreign 
words ; partly on account of the extreme brevity and succinct- 
ness of its style, the frequent use of technical terms and phrases, 
and mere allusions to matters discussed elsewhere 5 partly 
also, on account of the circumstance that, in consequence of 
elliptical expressions, and in the absence of all punctuation marks, 
question and answer, in the most intricate discussions, are some- 
times so closely interwoven, that it is not easy to discern at 
once, where the one ends and the other begins. To meet all 
these difficulties, which are often very perplexing, numerous 
commentaries have been written by distinguished Rabbis. 
Some of the commentaries extend to the whole Talmud, or a 
great portion thereof; others exclusively to the Mishna, or some 
of its sections. The following are the most important com- 
mentaries which are usually printed in our Talmud, and in the 
separate Mishna editions. 


A. COMMENTARIES ON THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
§ 32. 


1. The celebrated Rablenu Chananel (m3) of Kairwan 
(Africa), flourishing in the beginning of the eleventh century, 
wrote a commentary on the greater portion of the Talmud, 
which is often quoted by later commentators, and is now printed 
in the latest Talmud edition of Wilna. 

2. Rashis''y , as theprince of commentators is generally 
called from the initials of his name, Rabbi Solomon Isaaki, of 
Troyes (1040—1105), wrote a commentary on almost the whole of 


66 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


the Babylonian Talmud, which is printed in all editions thereof. 
It is atrue model of concise,clear and systematic commentation. 
By a few plain words it often sheds light upon the obscurest 
passages, and unravels the most entangled arguments of the 
Talmudical discussions. As if anticipating the slightest hesita- 
tion of the unexperienced student, it offers him at once the 
needed explanation, or at least a hint that leads him the right: 
way. It has truly been said that but for this peerless comment- 
ary of Rashi, the Babylonian Talmud would have remained as 
neglected as the Palestinian. An additional merit of that com- 
mentary is the fact that it very often establishes the correct 
version of the corrupted Talmud text. Such corrections are 
generally headed by the initials 975 (standing for j7D73 %5n 
‘‘thus we are to read”’). 

8. Supplements and additions to Rashi’s commentary. 
The commentary on some Masechtoth, not being finished by 
Rashi, was completed in his spirit by his relatives and disciples. 
His son-in-law R. Jehuda b. Nathan completed that on Maccoth 
from fol. 19b.; his grandson R. Samuel b. Meir p’a¥ com- 
pleted that on B. Bathra from fol. 29a. The last mentioned 
author, besides, added his commentary to Rashi’s on the last 
Perek of Pesachim. The missing commentary of Rashi on Ned- 
arim from fol. 22b. is supplemented by that of his predecessor, 
the celebrated Rabbenu Gershom.' To this commentary on 
Nedarim two others areadded in our Talmud editions, one by 
Rabbenu Nissim (7) and the other by R. Asher ysnn, both 
flourishing in the fourteenth century. 


4. Tosaphoth (meaning Additions) are a collection of an- 
notations printed in all Talmud editions on the exterior margin 
of the page, while the interior margin on the opposite side of 
the Talmud text is generally assigned to Rashi’s commentary. 
They are not, like the latter, a running commentary, but rather 
separate remarks and discussions on some passage of the text, 
intended to elucidate its meaning. Sometimes the explanations 
1 Some bibliographers maintain that also the commentary on 


Nazir and Meilah, ascribed to Rashi, does not belong to him, but to 
his disciples. 


COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 67 


given in the commentaries of R. Chananel and Rashi are 
criticised and corrected. The latter of these two commentaries 
is, by way of excellence, generally designated as Contros (ow Pp 
commentarius). The Tosaphoth often display great acumen and 
hair-splitting dialectics in finding, and again harmonizing, ap- 
parent contradictions between passages of the Talmud. Such 
questions of contradiction are generally introduced by the phrases: 
TON ONi(abbrev. n’s1) “ifthou wilt say or object..”, or mpsn “it 
is astonishing that..”, or sm ‘‘thou mayest say or object..? 
or nwe “here is the difficulty that....,” and the final solution 
ofthe question or difficulty by -15 ws (abbr.5"5) “but it may be 
said in answer to this.....” 

The numerous authors of these Tosaphoth (mipoin »Sya The 
Tosaphists, the glossarists) flourished during the 12th and 13th 
centuries in France and Germany. ‘To the first among them be- 
long the nearest relatives and disciples of Rashi, namely his two 
sons-in-law R. Meir b. Samuel and R. Jehuda b. Nathan Cyt 
his grandsons. Isaac b. Meir (p*3%5), R. Samuel b. Meir (a aia) 
and R. Jacob b. Meir, called Rabbenu Tam (m’) and a nephew 
of the latter, R. Isaac b. Samuel, of Dampierre (pin). 

Other autherities frequently mentioned in the Tosaphoth 
are: R. Jehuda b. Isaac, of Paris, called Sir Leon (12th century) : 
R. Perez b. Elias in Corbeil (13th century).? 

The Tosaphoth printed in our Talmud editions are 
merely extracts of older collections, namely of ‘Tosaphoth 
Sens” by R.Samson b. Abraham of Sens (abbrev. N34, not to be 
confounded with the same abbreviation of R.Solomon b. Adereth) 
who flourished in the beginning of the 13th eentury, and prin- 
cipally of ‘“‘Tosaphoth Tuch” or Touques by R. Eliezer of Tuch, 
(Touques), second part of that century. 

A collection of “former Tosaphoth” p*yY9 mIpD\m on Yoma 
is, in some editions, appended to that Masecchta. BR. Moses of 
Coucy, the author of S’mag, is supposed to have been the origin- 
ator of that collection, 


1 A full list of the Tosaphists is given by Zunz, Zur Geschichte 
und Literatur, pp. 29-60. 


68 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


An anonymous author of the 14th century, excerpted from 
all Tosaphoth the practical results of their remarks and discuss- 
ions. These paragraphed excerpts called MIDDIN 3pds (Decisions 
of the Tosaphoth) are in our Talmud editions appended to each 
Masechta. 


Remark 1. References to certain passages in Rashi as well as 
Tosaphoth are usually made by citing the beginning words, or the catch 
words onnon 3125 abbrev. 15) of that passage. 

Remark 2. Of the great number of later commentaries and super- 
commentaries, generally published in separate volumes, the following 
are appended to some Talmud editions: 

a. mpow nosnor 5“wand wrn by Solomon Luria (S4wanp), in 
the XVI century. This shorter commentary is valuable especially on 
account of its numerous critical emendations in the reading of the Tal. 
mud text as well as of Rashi and Tosaphoth. 

b. x’vanpd owron, Novellae, i.e. new comments by &. Samue, 
Edels (of Posen, died in the year 1631). In these explanatory and 
dialectical comments on Talmudical passages, and on Rashi and 
Tosaphoth, the author often displays a high degree of sagacity and 
penetration. 

c. pane wrtn, Novellae, i. e. new comments by R. Meir Lublin 
(Rabbi in Cracow and Lemberg, died in the year 1616). These likewise 
very sagacious comments refer mostly to the Tosaphoth. 


B. COMMENTARIES EXCLUSIVELY ON THE MISHNA. — 
§ 33. 


1. The first to write a commentary on the whole Mishna 
was Moses Maimonides [XII century]. He commenced it in 
the 23rd year of his age, in Spain, and finished it in his 30th 
year, in Egypt. This commentary was written in Arabic, 
manuscripts of which are to be found in the Bodleian Library 
at Oxford, and in some other libraries. From the Arabic it 
was translated into Hebrew by several scholars, flourishing in 
the XIII century, namely Seder Zeraim, by Jehuda Char’zi; 
Seder Moed, oy Joseph Ibn Alfual; Seder Nashim, by J acoh 


COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. 69 


Achsai (or Abbasi’). Seder Nezikin, by Solomon b. Joseph, 
with the exception of Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin and Masecheth 
Aboth, including the ethical treatise Sh’mone Perakim, in- 
troducing the latter, which were translated by Samuel Ibn 
Tibbon; Seder Kodashim, by Nathanel Ibn Almuh; the trans- 
lator of Seder Teharoth is not known. These translations are 
appended to all Talmud editions, behind each Masechta under 
the heading of o’sD9n9 nyswe»n wins. 

The characteristic feature of this commentary of Maimonides 
consists in this, that it follows the analytical method, laying 
down at the beginning of each section the principles and general 
views of the subject, and thereby throwing light upon the par- 
ticulars to be explained, while Rashi in his Talmud commentary 
adopted the synthetical method, commencing with the explan- 
ation of the particulars, and thereby leading to a clear under- 
standing of the whole of the subject matter. 

29. Several distinguished Rabbis wrote commentaries on 
single sections of the Mishna, especially on those Masechtoth to 
which no Babylonian Gemara (and hence no Rashi) exists. Of 
these commentaries the following are found in our Talmud 
editions: 

a. wreas wis on all Masechtoth of Seder Zeraim, except 
Berachoth, and all Masechtoth of Seder Teharoth, except Nidda, 
by R. Simson of Sens (XII century), the celebrated Tosaphist. 

b. wns wip, on the same Masechtoth, by &. Asher d. 
Yechiel (XIII cemtury) the author of the epitome of the Talmud 
which is appended to all Masechtoth. 

c. wr wip on Masecheth Middoth, by &. Shemaya who 
is supposed to have been a disciple of Rashi. 

d. sayqn wins on. Masecheth Eduyoth, by «. Abraham 
b. Davia( XII cent.), the celebrated author of critical annotations 
on Maimonides’ Talmudical code. 

e. Commentary on the Masechtoth Kinnim and Tamid 
by an anonymous author. 

3. R. Obadya of Bertinoroin \taly, and Rabbi in Jerusalem 
(d. in the year 1510), wrote a very lucid commentary on the 
whole Mishna which accompanies the text in most ofour separate 


1 See Graetz, Geschichte d. J. vol. VJI, p. 302, 


70 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODU CTION. 


Mishna editions. He follows the synthetic method of Rashi, and 
adds to each paragraph of the Mishna the result ofthe discussion 
of the Gemara. 

4, wy mippin Additional Comments by Yom Tob Lipman 
Heller, Rabbi of Prague and Cracow (XVII century). These 
comments likewise extending to all parts of the Mishna, and 
accompanying its text on the opposite side of Bartinoro’s com- 
mentary in most of our Mishna editions, contain very valuable 
explanations and critical remarks. 

5. Ofshorter commentaries to be found only is some special 
editions of the Mishna text the following may be mentioned: 

a orn py, by Jacob Chagiz, Kabbiin Jerusalem (XVII 
century), the author of a Talmudical terminology Zechilath 
Chochma. 3 
b. mm 55 x5, by Senior Phoebus (XVIII cent.). This 
commentary is an abstract of Bertinoros and Yom Tob Lipman 
Heller’s commentaries. 

ce. HMI}, by /saae Jon Gabbai in Leghorn (XVII century), is © 
generally based on the commentaries of Rashi and Maimonides. 


C. COMMENTARIES ON THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD. 
§ 34. 


The Palestinian Talmud was not as fortunate as the Babyl- 
onian in regard to complete and lucid commentaries. Most of 
the commentaries on the former extend only to some sections 
or parts thereof, and none of them dates further back than to 
the sixteenth century. 

The first commentary on the whole Palestinian Talmud by 
an anonymous author, appeared in the Cracow edition of the 
year 1609, and is reprinted in the latest Krotoschin edition. It 
is a brief and insufficient commentary. 

2. ypwin mw, a commentary on 18 Masechtoth by &. 
Joshua Benveniste (XVII century). 

Sanaa and additions, called ja7p ww on Seder 
Moed, Nashim and part of Nezikin by &. David Fraenkel, Rabbi 
in Dessau and later in Berlin, (teacher of Moses Mendelssohn, 
XVIII century). 


COMMENTARIES ON THE TALMUD. (ol 


4. swe ssp and oan mx, a double commentary on the 
whole Jerushalmi dy 2. Moses Margolioth (XVII century). This 
double commentary and the preceding of David Fraenkel are 
embodied in the Shitomir edition (1860-67). 


5. js Mans on Berachoth, Peah and Demai by Z. Frankel 
(Vienna 1874 and Breslau 1875). 


6. Commentary on Seder Zeraim and Mosecheth Shekalim 
by Solomon Syrileio (or Serilio), an exile from Spain. Of this 
commentary only Berachoth was published from a MS. with 
annotations by M. Lehmann (Frank. on the Main 1875). 

Regarding some other commentaries on single parts of the 
Palestinian Talmud see Z. Frankel, Mebo Ha-Jerushalmi 
134a-136a. 


CHAPTER VIII. 
EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


§ 35. 


Since the Babylonian Talmud was considered by most of 
the Jewish communities in all countries as the source of the rab- 
binical law by which to regulate the religious life, it is but 
natural that already at a comparatively early period attempts 
were made to furnish abstracts of the same for practical purposes. 
‘This was done partly by epitomes or compendiums which, retain- 
ing the general arrangement and divisions of the Talmud, bring 
its matter into a narrower compass by omitting its Agadic and 
unnecessary passages, and abridging the legal discussions; and 
partly by codes in which the results of the discussed legal mat- 
ter 1s presented in a more systematic order. The first attempts 
in this direction were made by R. Jehudai Gaon of Sura VALET 
century) in his book Hadachoth Ketuoth (abridged Halachoth), 
and by R. Simon of Kahira (—IX century) in his (Halachoth 
Gedoloth. Both of these two works which afterwards coalesced 
into one work still extant under the latter title, were however 
eclipsed by later master works of other celebrated Rabbinical 
authorities, 

A. EPITOMES. 
§ 36. 


The principal epitomes or compendiums of the Talmud are 
by the following authors: 

1. &. Lsaac Alfasi (after the initials called ‘Rif’, born in 
1013 near the city of Fez in Africa, died in 1103 as Rabbi at 
Lucena in Spain) wrote an excellent compendium which he called 
‘‘Halachoth” but which is usually called by the name of its 
author 255s or 9%. In this compendium he retains the 
general arrangement, the language and style of the Talmud, 
but omits, besides the Agada, all parts and passages which 


EPITOMES AND CODIFICATIONS. 73 


concern laws that had become obsolete since the destruction of 
the temple. Besides, he condensed the lengthy discussions, and 
added his own decision in cases not clearly decided in the Talmud. 


Remark. Alfasi’s compendium comprises in print three large folio 
volumes in which the text is accompanied by Rashi’s Talmud com- 
mentary and, besides, by numerous commentaries, annotations and 
glosses, especially those by R. Nissim b. Reuben (}4); by R. Zerachia 
Halevi (Maor); by R. Mordecai b. Hillel; by R. Joseph Chabiba (Nimuke 
Joseph), and by some other distinguished Rabbis. 


2. R. Asher b. Jechiel (y'san), a German Rabbi, later in 
Toledo, Spain, where he died in 1327, wrote a compendium after 
the pattern of that of Alfasi and embodied in the same also the 
opinions of later authorities. This compendium is appended in 
our Talmud editions to each Masechta, under the title of the 
author (Ws 13°35. 

R. Jacob, the celebrated son of this author, added to that 
compendium an abstract of the decisions contained in the same, 
the yw’ san ‘pd*D WS"p. 

B. CODES. 


Ss BN 


1. Mishne Thora mn m3wy ‘Repetition of the Law”, by 
R. Moses Maimonides (92%) flourishing in the XII century. 
Thisis the most comprehensive and systematically arranged Code 
of all the Laws scattered through the two Talmuds, or resulting 
from the discussions inthe same. Occasionally also the opinions 
of the post Talmudic authorities, the Gaonim, are added. 

This gigantic work, written throughout in Mishnic Hebrew 
in a very lucid and attractive style, is divided into fourteen 
books, hence its additional name Sepher Ha-yad (7 having the 
numerical value of 14), and by way of distinction, it was later 
called ‘Yad Hachazaka”, the strong hand. Every book is, ac 
cording to the various subjects treated therein, divided into 
Halachoth, the special names of which are given at the head of 
each of those fourteen books. The Halachoth are again subdi- 
vided into chapters (Perakim), and these into paragraphs. 


74. HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


Remark. This Codeis usualy published in four large folio volumes, 
and provided with the following annotations and commentaries: 

a. Hasagoth Rabed “3“aN7n niwn Critical Remarks, by R. 
Abraham b. David, of Posquieres, a contemporary and antagonist of 
Maimonides. 

b. Migdal Oz py S543, the Tower of Strength, defending Maimonid- 
es’ Code against the censures of the critic named above, by Shem Tob 
Ibn Gaon, of Spain (beginning of XIV century). 

c. Hagahoth Maimuniyoth myweyoy ning, Annotations, by R. 
Meir Ha-Cohen, of Narbonne (XIV century ). 

d. Maggid Mishne. a commentary, generally referring to the 
Talmudical sources of the decisions in Maimonides’ Code, by Don 
Vidal di Tolosa (XIV century). . 

e. Khesef Mishne, wd D5, acommentary like the preceding, 
by R. Joseph Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (XVI century). 

In some editions the following two commentaries are also ap- 
pended, 

Lechem Mishne rawr ond, by &. Abraham de Boton, of Szafed, 
XVI century. | 

Mishne Ilmelech 05 mwy, by Jehuda Rosanes, Rabbi in Con- 
stantinople, d. 1727. 


2. Sita misy’p (abbrev. 3’19D), the great Law book, by the 
Tosaphist #, Moses of Coucy, in France (XIII century). This 
work arranges the Talmudical law according to the 613 precepts 
which the Rabbis found to be contained in the Pentateuch, and is 
divided into j*wy commendatory, and puso prohibitory laws. 

Remark. A similar work, but ona smaller scale, is }OP nis ‘dD 
(p19D), also called Amude Golah, by R. Isaac b. Joseph, of Corbeil. 
(d. 1280). 

3. Turim gn (the Rows of Laws), by &. Jacob, son of 
that celebrated R. Asher b. Jechiel who was mentioned above. 
The work is divided into four parts, called: Zur Orach Chayim, 
treating of Liturgical Laws ; Zur Yore Dea, treating of 
the Ritual Laws; Zur Eben Ha-ezer on the Marriage 
Laws, and Zur Choshen Mishpat on the Civil Laws. Each of 
these four books is subdivided according to subjects under ap- 
propriate headings, and into chapters, called Simanim. This 


EPITOMES AND CoDIFICATIONS. 15 


code differs from that of Maimonides in so far as it is restricted to 
such laws only which were still in use outside of Palestine, and 
as it embodies also rules and customs which were established 
after the close ofthe Talmud. Besides, it is not written in that 
uniform and pure language and in that lucid style by which the 
work of Maimonides is characterized. 


Remark. The text of the Turim is generally provided with the 
commentaries Beth Joseph, by R. Joseph Karo, and Darke Moshe, by 
R. Moses Isserles. 


4. Shulchan Aruch, yy ow (the prepared table), by 2. 
Joseph Karo (XVI century), the same author who wrote the com- 
mentaries on the codes of Maimonides and of R. Jacob b. Asher. 
Taking the last mentioned code (Turim) and his own commentary 
on the same as basis, and retaining its division into four parts as 
well as. that into subjects and chapters, he subdivided each 
chapter (Siman) into paragraphs (%5%;;p) and so remodeled its 
contents as to give it the proper shape and style of a law book. 
This Shulchan Aruch together with the numerous annotations 
(mina) added to it by the contemporary R. Moses Isserles (/195) 
was up to our time regarded by all rabbinical Jews as the autho- 
ritative code by which all questions of the religious life were 
decided. 


Remark. The glosses and commentaries onthe Shulchan Aruch 
are very numerous. Those usually printed with the text in the folio 
editions are the following, all belonging to the seventeenth century: 

a. Beer ha-Gola, giving the sources of that code, by Moses Ribkes 
in Amsterdam. 

b. Ture Zahab (}"t9) commentary on all parts of the code, by R. 
David b. Samuel Halevi. 

c. Sifthe Cohen (4“w) on Jore Dea and Choshen Mishpat, by R. 
Sabbathai Cohen. 

d. Magen Abraham (x) on Orach Chayim, by R. Abram 
Gumbinner, 

e. Beth Samuel on Eben Ha-ezer by R. Samuel b. Uri, of Furth. 

f. Chelkath Mechokek on Eben Ha-ezer, by R. Moses of Brisk. 


76 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Constant references to the four Codes mentioned above are 
made in the marginal glosses which are found on every page of 
the Talmud, under the heading of ‘‘Zz Aishpat, Ner Mitzwah’. 
It isthe object of these glosses to show, at every instance when 
a, law is quoted or discussed in the Talmud, where the final decision 
of that law is to be found in the various codes. The authorship 
of these marginal glosses is ascribed to R. Joshua Boas Baruch 
(XVI century). The same scholar wrote also the glosses 
headed Zhora Orwhich are found in the space between the 
Talmud text and Rashi’s commentary, and which indicate the 
books and chapters of the biblical passages quoted in the Talmud, 
besides, the very important glosses on the inner margins of the 
pages, headed Massoreth Ha-shas (pwr Mai) which give 
references to parallel passages inthe Talmud. The last ment- 
ioned glosses were later increased with critical notes by Isaiah 
Berlin (Pik), Rabbi in Breslau (d. 1799). 


C. COLLECTIONS OF THE AGADIC PORTIONS OF THE TALMUD. 
§ 38. 


While the above mentioned Compendiums and Codes are 
restricted to abstracting only the legal matter (Halacha) of the 
Talmud, &. /acob tbn Chadbib, flourishing at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, collected all the Agadic passages especially of 
the Babylonian Talmud. This very popular collection which is 
usually printed with various commentaries has the title of Zz 
Jacob (apy jy; in some editions it is also called ON? py). 

R. Samuel Jafe, flourishing in the latter part of that century, 
made a similar Collection ofthe Agadic passages of the Palestinian 
Talmud with an extensive commentary under the title of 
MMi mp? (Vienna, 1590 and Berlin 1725-26). An abridged 
edition with a short commentary was published under the title of 
pwn pia’p (Lemberg, 1860). 


CHAPTER IX. 


MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE 
TALMUD. 


A. MANUSCRIPTS. 


§ 39. 

In consequence of the terrible persecutions of the Jews 
during the Middle Ages, and the destruction of their libraries, 
so often connected therewith, and especially in consequence of 
the vandalism repeatedly perpetrated by the Church against 
the Talmud,! only a very limited number of manuscripts of the 
same have come down to our time. Codices of single Sedarim 
(sections) and Masechtoth (tracts or treatises) are to be found in 
various libraries of Europe, especially in the Vatican Library of 
Rome, and in the libraries of Parma, Leyden, Paris, Oxford, 
Cambridge, Munich, Berlin and Hamburg. The only known 
complete manuscript of the Babylonian Talmud, written 
in the year 1369, is in possession of the Royal Library of 
Munich. A fragment of Talmud Pesachim, ofthe ninth or tenth 
century, is preserved in the University Library of Cambridge, 
and wag edited with an autotype fascimile, by W. H. Lowe, 
Cambridge 1879. 

The Columbia College in the city of New York, lately 
acquired a collection of manuscripts containing the treatises 
Pesachim, Moed Katon, Megilla and Zebachim of the Babylonian 
Talmud. These manuscripts came from Southern Arabia, and 
date from the year 1548. ? 

1 It is stated that at the notorious auto-da-fe of the Talmud, held 
in the year 1249, at Paris, twenty four cart-loads of Talmud tomes were 
consigned to the flames. Similar destructions of the Talmud were 
executed by the order of Pope Julius III, in the year 1553, first at Rome, 
then at Bologne and Venice, and in the following year in Ancona and 
other cities. Among the 12,000 tomes of the Talmud that were burned 
at Cremona, in the year 1559 (see Graetz Geschichte d. Juden X. p. 382), 
were undoubtedly also numerous Manuscripts, though most of them 
may have been printed copies. 


2 See Max L. Margolis, ‘The Columbia College MS. of 
Meghilla examined,” New York 1892. ‘ 


78 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Manuscripts of the A/7shna or of single Sedarim thereof, 
some of which dating from the thirteenth century, are preserved 
in the libraries of Parma, of Berlin, of Hamburg, of Oxford and 
of Cambridge. That of the last mentioned library was edited 
by W. H. Lowe: ‘‘The Mishna on which the Palestinian Talmud 
rests,’ etc., Cambridge, 1888. ~ 

Of the Palestinian Talmud the only manuscript, of consid- 
erable extent, is preserved in the Library of Leyden. See 8. 
M. Schiller-Szinessy, ‘‘Description of the Leyden MS. of the 
Palestinian Talmud.” Cambridge 1878. Fragments of the 
Palestinian Talmud are also found in some other libraries, 
especially in those of Oxford and Parma. 

Fuller information concerning MSS. of the Talmud is given 
in F. Lebrecht’s ‘‘Handschriften und erste Ausgaben des Babyl. 
Talmud,” Berlin 1862. See also M. Steinschneider’s ‘‘Hebritische 
Bibliographie,” Berlin, 1862 and 1868. 


B. THE TALMUD IN PRINT. 


a. The Mishna editions. 


§ 40. 


Already as early as the year 1492, the first edition of th» 
Mishna together with the commentary of Maimonides appearea 
in Naples. It was followed by several editions of Venice (1546-50, 
and 1606), of Riva di Trento (1559) and of Mantua (1559-63). 
In the last mentioned editions the commentary of Obadia di 
Bertinoro is added. The editions which have since appeared 
are very numerous. Those which appeared since the seven- 
teenth century are generally accompanied, besides Bertinoro’s 
commentary, by ws mipoin by Lipman Heller or some other 
shorter commentaries. 


b. The Babylonian Talmud. 


§ 41. 


The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was 
published by Daniel Bomberg in 12 folio volumes, Venice 


MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED EDITIONS. 79 


1520-23.1 Besides the text, it contains the commentary of Rashi, 
the Tosaphoth, the Piske-Tosaphoth, the compendium of Asheri, 
and the Mishna commentary of Maimonides. This original 
edition served as model for all editions which subsequently ap- 
peared at Venice, Basel, Cracow, Lublin, Amsterdam, Frank- 
fort on-the-Oder, Berlin, Frankfort on-the-Main, Sulzbach, Dy- 
hernfurt, krague, Warsaw, and recently at Vienna and Wilna. The 
later editions were greatly improved by the addition of valuable 
literary and critical marginal notes and appendices by learned 
rabbis. But the Basel and most ofthe subsequent editions down 
almost to the present time, have been much mutilated by the 
official censors of the press, who expunged from the Talmud all 
those passages which, in their opinion, seemed to reflect upon 

‘hristianity,and, besides, changed expressions, especially names 
of nations and of sects, which they suspected as having reference 
to Christians. ? 

The Amsterdam editions, especially the first (1644-48), es- 
caped those mutilations at the hand of the censors, and are on 
this account considered very valuable. Most ofthe passages which 
have elsewhere been eliminated or altered by the censors, have 
been extracted from the Amsterdam edition, and published in 
separate small books. Of these the following two may be menti- 
oned: MiDsawan HSS (3.1L. )andp'’wr misimon, Koenigsberg, 1860. 

A critical review of the complete editions of the Babylonian 
Talmud and of the very numerous editions of single Masechtoth 


1 Prior to this first complete edition, a number of single Masechtoth 
of the Babyl. Talmud had already been published by Gershom of 
Soncino, between the years 1484 and 1519, at Soncino and at Pesaro. 


* Words mostly changed are: instead of 3 (gentile) %p\5 
(a Samaritan) or ‘yp (an Aethiopian); instead of }"9 (a heretic) spyy 
(a Sadducee) or D\71p"pN (an Epicurean); instead of 143) (an alien, a Non 
Israelite) O”“)Dy (an idolater); instead of 7“\~ (the nations of the world)— 
o%533(Babylonians) or O°99)3(Canaanites); instead of 3xD)7(the Romans) 
*NOIN (Syrians) or ‘ND15 (Persians); instead of %\7(Rome) > y7 (the city) 
etc, 

In the more recent editions, however, except those appearing 


under Russian censorship, the original readings have mostly been 
restored, 


80 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


since the year 1484, was published by Raphael Rabbinovicz, in 
his Hebrew pamphlet, 195mm noDtn Sy apm Munich 1877.1 

The same author also collected and published very rich and 
important material for a critical edition of the Babylonian 
Talmud from the above mentioned manuscript in the Royal 
Library of Munich and other manuscripts, as well as from early 
prints of single Masechtoth in various libraries. The title of 
this very extensive work, writtenin Hebrew, is Dikduke Sopherim, 
Deb *PITIPT'D with the Latin title: Variae lectiones in Mishnam 
et in Talmud Babylonicum, etc., Munich 1868-86. The fifteen 
volumes in octavo which have appeared of this valuable work 
comprise only three and a half Sedarim of the six Sedarim of the 
Talmud. It is to be regretted that in consequence of the death 
of the learned author the completion of this important work has 
been suspended. 


c The Palestinian Talmud. 
| § 42. 


Of the Palestinian Talmud (Jerushalmi) only four complete 
editions appeared: 

1. The first edition, published by Daniel Bomberg, Venice 
1523-24, in one folio volume, without any commentary. 

2. The Cracow edition, 1609, with a short commentary 
on the margin. | 

3. The Xvotoshin edition, 1866, with a commentary like 
that in the Cracow edition, but added to it are marginal notes, 
containing references to parallel passages in the Babylonian 
Talmud, and corrections of text readings. 

4, The Shitomir edition, 1860-67, in several folio volumes, 
with various commentaries. 

Besides these four complete editions, several parts have 
been published with commentaries. 


1 This instructive pamphlet is also reprinted as an appendix to 
vol. VIII of Dikduke Sopherim, 


CHAPTER X. 
AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TAL MUD. 


A. LEXICONS. 
§ 43. 


1. The Aruch (Jin) by &. Nathan b. Jechiel, of Rome, 
flourishing in the eleventh century. This oldest Lexicon for 
both Talmuds and the Midrashim, on which all later dictionaries 
are based, still retains its high value, especially on account of 
its copious quotations from the Talmudical literature by which 
many corrupted readings are corrected. It received many va- 
luable additions (qy1yr spi) at the hand of Benjamin Mussaphia 
(XVII century). These additions, generally headed by the 
initials 3”"N=pDH 3S DN, mostly explain the Greek and Latin 
words occurring in the Talmud and Midrash. The edition by 
M. Landau (Prague 1819-24, in five 8vo volumes) 1s increased by 
numerous annotations and supplied with definitions in German. 
The latest and best edition of that important work is: 

2. Aruch Completum (nd>wn iy) by Alexander Kohut, vol. 
1-VIII. ‘Vienna and New York, 1878-1892. In this edition the 
original lexicon of Nathan b. Jechiel is corrected by collating 
several ancient Mss. of the work, and, besides, considerably 
enlarged by very valuable philological and critical researches 
and annotations. 

3. Lexicon Talmudicum by Joh. Buxtorf, Basel, 1640. Of 
this work written in Latin, a new corrected and enlarged edition 
was published by B. Fischer, Leipsic, 1869-75. 

4. Neuhebraisches und chald. Weérterbuch tiber die Tal- 
mudim wnd Midrashim, by 7. Zevy in four volumes. Leipsic 
1876-89. 

5. A Dictionary of the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi and 
the Midrashic Literature, by JZ. /astrow. London and New 
York, 1886-1903, in two volumes. 


82 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Remark. There are, besides, several small dictionaries, mostly 
abstracts of the Aruch, and useful for beginners. Special mention 
deserves M. Schulbaum, Neuhebrdisch-deutsches Worterbuch, Lem- 
berg, 1880. 


B. GRAMMARS, 
oS ay 


The modern works on the Grammar ofthe J/ishna have 
already been mentioned above p. 15 in the Note to the paragraph 
speaking of the Language of the Mishna. The first attempt at 
compiling a Grammar of the peculiar dialect of the Babylonian 
Gemara was made by: 

S, D. Zuzzatto in his ‘Elementi grammaticali del Caldeo 
Biblico e det dialetto Talmudico Babilonese”. Padua, 1865. 

Two translations of this work appeared, namely: 

1. Grammatik der bibl. chaldaeischen Sprache und des 
Idioms des Talmud Babli. Hin Grundriss von 8. D. Luzzatto, 
mit Anmerkungen herausgegeben von JZ. S. Kriiger. Breslau, 
1873. 

2. Luzzatto’s Grammar of the bibl. Chaldaic Language and 
of the idiom of the Talmud Babli, translated by /. Goldammer, 
New York, 1876. . 

Caspar Levias. Grammar of the Aramaic Idiom contained 
in the Babylonian Talmud. Cincinnati, 1900. 

I, Rosenberg. Das Aramaische Verbum in babyl. Talmud. 
Marburg, 1888. 


C. CHRESTOMATHIES, 
§ 45. 


A.B. Ehrlich, Fashe Perakim, Selections from the Talmud 
and the Midrashim. New York, 1884. 

B. Fischer, Talmudische Chrestomathie mit Anmerkungen, 
Scholien und Glossar. Leipsic, 1884. 

Ph. Lederer. Lehrbuch zum Selbstunterricht im babyl. Tal. 
mud, 3 parts, Pressburg, 1881-88. 

A, Singer. “719% Talmudische Chrestomathie fiir den 
ersten Unterricht im Talmud, 2 parts. Pressburg, 1882. 


AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD, 82 


D. InrrRopUcTORY WORKS AND TREATISES. 
a. OLDER WORKS. 
§ 46. 


1. Samuel Hanagid, of Granada (XI century), was the first 
to write an introduction to the Talmud. Only a part of his 
work has come down to our time, and is appended to the first 
volume of our Talmud editions under the heading tip5mnm siat. 

2. Moses Maimonides opens his Mishna commentary on 
Seder Zeraim with an introduction to the Talmud, especially to 
the Mishna. 

This introduction of Maimonides as well as that of Samuel 
Hanagid have been translated into German by Pzzzer in his 
Translation of Talm. Berachoth. 

3. mind ’D (Methodology of the Talmud), by Samson of 
Chinon (XIV century). Constantine (1515), Cremona, (1558), 
Verona (1657). 

4. odsy miovon, by /eshua b.. Joseph Halevi, of Toledo, 
(XV century). 

This work was translated into Latin by Constantin 
L’Empereur, under the title Clavis Talmudica, Leyden, 1634. 

In the editions of Venice (1639), and of Livorno (1792) the 
Halichoth Olam is accompanied by two complementary works. 
modnn 555, by Joseph Karo, andpypiny as, by Solomon Algazi. 

Abstracts ofthe works 3 and 4 are added to Samuel Hanagid’s 
Mebo Hatalmud in the appendix to our Talmud editions. 

5. sopasm %oat Methodology of the Talmud by Jsaac 
Campanton, of Castilia (XV century), published in Venice (1565) 
Mantua (1593), Amsterdam (1754). A new edition was pub 
rished by Isaac Weiss, Vienna, 1891. 

6. moon ndnn (Methodology of the Talmud), by /acod 
Chagiz (XVII century). Verona 1647. Amst. 1709. 

b. MopERN WORKs IN HEBREW. 


ers 


J. Abelsohn, FIT W721, Methodology of the Mishna and 
Rules of Halacha. Wilna, 1859. 


84 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Jacob Brill. Fw size, Introduction to the Mishna, 2 
volumes. Frankf. 0. M. 1876-85. Vol. I treats of the lives and 
methods of the teachers from Ezra to the close of the Mishna, 
and vol. II of the Plan and System of the Mishna. 

Lebt Hirsch Chajes. siponn sind, Introduction to the 
Talmud. Lemberg, 1845. 

Z. Frankel. m3yon D595, Hodegetica in Mishnam etc., 
Leipsic, 1859. A little Supplement to this important work was 
published under the title of ‘‘ Additamenta et Index ad librum 
Hodegetica in Mischnam”., Leipsic, 1867. 

Z. Frankel. sabyiasn sip, Introductio in Talmud Hiero- 
solymitanum. Breslau, 1870. 

Joachim Oppenheim. —sy on mitdin, the genesis of the 
Mishna. Pressburg, 1882. 

J. A. Weiss. penta withthe German title: Zur 
Geschichte der jiidischen Tradition. Vienna, 1871-83. Vol I 
and II treat of the period to the close of the Mishna, and Vol. 
III of that of the Amoraim. 

J. Wiesner, prowyins myss, Investigations concerning 
the origin and the contents ofthe Palestinian Talmud. Vienna, 
1872, 


c. WORKS AND ARTICLES IN MODERN LANGUAGES, 
§ 48. 


S. Adler. The article Za/mud in Johnson’s Encyclopedia, 
New York. Reprinted in the author’s collective work ‘‘Kobetz 
al Yad”. New York, 1886: pp. 46-80. 

J. S. Bloch. Finblicke in die Geschichte der Entstehung’ 
der Talmudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1884. 

NV. Brill. Die Entstehungsgeschichte des baby]. Talmuds 
als Schriftwerkes (in Jahrbiicher fiir Jtid. Geschichte u. Literatur 
II pp. 1-123). 

Sam. Davidson. The Article Zalmud in John Kitto’s 
Cyclopaedia. 

J. Derenbourg. Article Talmud in Lichtenberg’s Ency- 


clopedie des sciences religieuses. Paris, 1882. XII pp. 1007 
10386. 


AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. 85 


Z. Frankel. Beitrige zur Hinleitung in den Talmud (in 
Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 
X, pp. 186-194; 205-212; 258-272). 

J. Hamburger. Articles Mischna and Talmud in Real 
Eycyclopadie fiir Bibel und Talmud. Strelitz 1883. Vol II pp. 
789-798 and 1155-1167. 

D. Hoffmann. Die erste Mischna und die Controversen 
der Tanaim. Berlin, 1882. 

B. Pick. Article Talmud in Clintock and Strong’s Cyclo- 
paedia of theological Literature. Vol. X, pp. 166-187. 

Ludw. A. Rosenthal, Ueber den Zusammenhang der Mischna. 
Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Entstehungsgeschichte. Strasburg, 1890. 

S. M. Schiller-Szinessy. Article Mishnah in Encyclopedia 
Britannica, 9th Edition, vol. XVI, and Article Za/mud in vol. 
XXIII. 

Hermann L. Strack. Yinleitung in den Thalmud. Leipsic, 
1887. This work of the celebrated Christian scholar which treats 
of the subject with thoroughness, exactness and impartiality, 1s 
a reprint of the article Za/mud in Herzog’s Real Encyclopidie 
fiir protestant. Theologie. Second Edition, vol. XVIII. 


d. HISTORICAL WORKS. 


Of modern historical works which, treating of the Talmudical 
period shed much light upon the genesis of the Talmud, the fol- 
lowing are very important: 

Julius First. Kultur und Literaturgeschichte der Juden 
in Asien (Leipsic, 1849), treats of the Baoylonian academies 
and teachers during the period of the Amoraim. 

I. M. Jost. Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Secten 
(Leipsic 1857-59). Vol I, pp. 13-222 treat of the period from 
the destruction of the temple to the close of the Talmud. 


H. Graetz. Geschichte der Juden, Vol. IV, second edition, 
- Leipsic, 1866. This volume has been translated into English 
by James K. Gutheim: History of the Jews from the Downfall 
of the Jewish State to the conclusion of the Talmud. New 
YWOtkieLs (3. 


G. Karpeles. Geschichte der jiidischen Literatur. Berlin, 
1886. pp. 265-382. 


86 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION 


e. ENCYCLOPEDICAL WORKS, 
§ 50. 


Jsaac Lamperonti, physician and Rabbi in Ferrara (XVIII 
century) wrote in the Hebrew language a very extensive and 
useful Encyclopedia ofthe Talmud and the Rabbinical Decisions, 
under the title of pny? InB. Five folio volumes of this work, 
comprising the letters ¥-p, were published at Venice (1750) and 
Livorno (1840). The remaining volumes have lately been 
published in 8vo at Lyck (1864-1874) and Berlin (1885-1889), 
where also a new edition of the former volumes appeared. 

Solomon Rapaport. 35% Tay, an encyclopedical work in 
Hebrew of which only one volume, containing the letter 3, ap- 
peared (Prague 1852). 

J. Hamburger. Real Encyclopaedie fiir Bibel und Talmud, 
Abtheilung HI. Die Talmudischen Artikel A-Z. Strelitz, 1883. 
Three Supplements to this valuable work appeared Leipsic 
1886-92, 

f. SOME OTHER BOOKS OF REFERENCE. 


§ 51. 


Simon Peiser. ssyyw mndom3. Onomasticon of Biblical per- 
sons and of the Mishna teachers quoted in the Talmud and in 
Midrash (Wandsbeck 1728). 

Malachi ben Jacob (XVIII century), »385y 4°. This book 
is a Methodology of the Talmud, alphabetically arranged. 
Livorno, 1767, Berlin, 1852. 

A, Stein, Talmudische Terminologie; alphabetisch geordnet. 
Prague, 1869. 

Jacob Brill, y35 wry Die Mnemonotechnik des Talmud. 
Vienna, 1864. 

This little book explains the Szmanim, i. e. the mnemoniéal 
signs and symbols so often met with in the Talmud which are 
intended to indicate the sequence of the discussing teachers or 
of their arguments. See above p. 60, Note. 

Israel Mash. 43375 por Rabbinical Sentences, alphabetically 
arranged. Warsaw, 1874. 


AUXILIARIES TO THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD. 87 


S. Ph. Frenkel. wots jy. Index of the Agadic passages 
vf the Talmud. Krotoschin, 1885. 


Moses Halevi. py. Legal and ethical maxims of the 
Talmud, alphabetically arranged. Belgrade, 1874. 
Weesner. Scholien, wissenschaftliche Forschungen aus dem 


Gebiete des babyl. Talmud. I Berachoth; II Sabbath; III 
Erubin and Pesachim. Prague, 1859-67. 


CHAPTER XI. : 
TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD. 
A. THE MISHNA, 
8 52. 
a. LATIN TRANSLATIONS, 


The learned Dutch G. Surenhusius published (Amsterdam, 
1698-1703) a Latin version of the Mishna and ofthe com- 
mentaries of Maimonides and Obadia Bertinoro with annotations 
by several Christian scholars. 


Remark. Prior to this publication of Surenhusius, a Latin version 
of some single Masechtoth of the Mishna was published by various 
Christian Scholars, as Sabbath and Erubin by Seb. Schmidt (Leipsic, 
1661); Shekalim, by Joh. Wiilfer (Altdorf, 1680); Aboda Zara and Tamid, 
by C. Peringer (Altdorf, 1680). 


b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 

Johann Jacob Rabe. Mishnah tibersetzt und erliiutert. 
Anspach, 1760-63. | 

Lf. M. Jost, the celebrated Jewish historian, published 
(Berlin 1832-34) a new German translation in Hebrew characters 
with short introductions and annotations, together with the 
vocalized Mishna text and the commentary mn3 D>. 

A. Sammter. Mischnajoth, vokalisirter Text mit deutscher 
Uebersetzung und Erklirung. Berlin, 1886—. 

c. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 

W. Walton, Translation of the treatises Sabbath and 
Erubin, London, 1718. 

D. A. de Sola and M. J. Raphall. Fighteen treatises from 
the Mishna translated. London, 1843. 

Joseph Barclay published under the title ‘‘The Talmud” a 
translation of eighteen treatises of the Mishna with annotations. 
London, 1878. 

C. Zaylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers (the treatise 
Aboth). Cambridge, 1877. 


Remark. The treatise Aboth has been translated into almost all of 
the European languages. 


TRANSLATIONS. 89 


B. THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 
§ 53. 

To translate the Mishna is a comparatively easy task. 
Its generally plain and uniform language and style of expression, 
and its compendious character could easily enough be rendered 
into another language especially when accompanied by some 
explanatory notes. but it is quite different with the Gemara, 
especially the Babylonian. There are, of course, also passages 
in the Gemara which offer no great difficulties to a translator 
who is sufficiently familiar with the idiom in which the original 
is composed. We refer to the historical, legendary and hom1- 
letical portions (Agadas) which the compilers have interspersed 
inevery treatise. The main part ofthe Gemara, however, which 
is essentially of an argumentative character, giving minute 
reports of discussions and debates on the law, this part, so rich 
in dialectical subtilities,and so full of technicalities and elliptical 
expressions, offers to the translator almost insurmountable 
difficulties. Here a mere version of the original will not do; 
neither will a few explanatory foot notes be sufficient. It would 
sometimes require a whole volume of commentary to supplement 
the translation of a single chapter of the original, in order to 
render fully and clearly the train of thought and dialectical 
arguments so idiomatically and tersely expressed therein. Meee lis 


1 A striking analogy to this difficulty of translating the legal 
discussions of the Talmud is found in an other branch of legal literature, 
as may be seen fom the following Note which a learned jurist 
kindly furnished me: ‘‘The Year Books of the English Law, sometimes 
caled. the Black Letter Books, written in the quaint French Norman, 
which was the court-language of that day, have always been more or 
less a sealed book, except to experts in historical antiquities. By the 
effort of the Selden Society these Reports are being translated from 
time to time into the English; but to the uninitiated, even in English, 
these reports are gibberish, and none but those thoroughly versed in 
legal antiquities, and who have so to speak imbibed from a thousand 
other sources the spirit of the laws of that day, will be much benefited 
by this translation. It will take volumes of commentary, a hundred 


times more bulky than the text, to make this mine of Englsh common 
law of any value to the general practitioner, not to speak of the laity. 
“It is caviar to the general public.” 


90 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


explains why the various attempts at translating the whole of 
the Babylonian Talmud have, thus far, proven a failure, so that 
as yet only comparatively few Masechtoth of this Talmud have 
been translated,and these translations are in many cases not in- 
telligible enough to be fully understood by the reader who is not 
yet familiar with the original text and with the spirit of the 
Talmud. 


a. LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF SINGLE MASECHTOTH. 


Llasius Ugolinus published in volume XIX of his Thesaurus 
antiquitatum sacrarum (Venice 1756) a translation of the 
Masechtoth Zebachim and Menachoth, and in vol. XXV (1762) 
the Masecheth Sanhedrin. 

G. £. Ldzard published (Hamburg, 17 05) a Latin trans- 
lation of the first two Perakim of Aboda Zara. 


b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 


Johann Jacoh Rabe. Der Tractat Brachoth nach der Hiero- 
solymitan und Babylonischen Gemara tibersetzt uud erliutert. 
Haleen iy: 

C. M. Pinner. Tractat Berachoth. Text mit deutscher 
Uebersetzung und Einleitung in den Talmud. Berlin, 1842. 

ferd, Christian Ewald. Aboda Sarah, ein Tractat aus dem 
Talmud tibersetzt. Niirenberg, 1856 and 1868. 

A. Sammter. Tractat Baba Mezia. Text mit deutscher 
Uebersetzung und Erklirung. Berlin, 1876. 


M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Megilla nebst Tosafoth ins Deutsche 
ubertragen. Frankfort on the Main, 1883. , 

M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Rosch ha-Schanah ings Deutsche 
ubertragen. Frankf. on the Main, 1886. 

M, Rawicz. Der Tractat Sanhedrin ubertragen und mit 
erléuternden Bemerkungen versehen. Frankf. 1892. 

D. O. Straschun. Der Tractat Zaanith ins Deutsche tiber- 
tragen. Halle, 1883. 

August Wiinsche. Der Baby]. Talmud in seinen haggadischen 
Bestandtheilen iibersetzt, 2 volumes. Leipsic, 1886-88. 

fsaak Levy. Derachte Abschnitt ausdem Tractate Sabbath 


TRANSLATIONS, 91 


(Babli und Jeruschalmi) iibersetzt und philologisch behandelt. 
Breslau, 1892. 
c. FRENCH TNANSLATIONS. 

I. Michel Rabbinowicz, this translator of several parts of 
the Babyl. Talmud adopted the proper method in presenting the 
mental labor embodied in that work. In selecting a treatise for 
translation he followed the example of Alphasi (see above p. 72) 
in his celebrated epitome of the Talmud, in omitting all digres" 
sions from the main subject, and all episodic Agadas which the 
compilers interspersed among the stern dialectical discus- 
sions. The main part thus cleared from all disturbing and 
bewildering by-work, is then set forth in a clear and fluent 
translation which combines correctness with the noted ease 
and gracefulness of the French language. Necessary explan- 
ations are partly given in short foot-notes, and partly, 
with great skill, interwoven into the translation ofthe text. An 
understanding of the intricate dialectical discussions is greatly 
facilitated by appropriate headings, such as: Question; Answer; 
Rejoinder; Reply; Objection; Remark, etc. Besides, each treatise 
is prefaced by an introduction, in which the leading principles 
underlying that part of the Talmud are set forth. Of this lucid 
translation the following parts have appeared: 

1. Législation criminelle du Talmud, containing the treatise 
of Sanhedrin and such portions of AZaccoth as refer to the punish- 
ment of criminals. Paris, 1876. 

2. Législation civile du Talmud, traduction du traité 

‘ethuboth. Paris, 1880. 

3. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Lada 
Kamma. Paris, 1873. 

4. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Bada 
Metzia, Paris, 1878. 

5. Nouveau Commentaire et traduction du traité Baba 
Bathra, Paris, 1879. 

6. La médicine, les paiens etc. This volume contains such 
portions of thirty different treatises of the Talmud as refer to 
medicine, paganism, etc. Paris, 1879. 

M. Schwab, added to the first volume of his French trans- 


92 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTIOX 


lation of the Palestinian Talmud, (Paris, 1871) also a peegleiats 
of Berachoth of the Baby]. Talmud. 


d. ENGLISH TRANSLATION. 


A. W. Streane. Translation of the treatise Chagiga. 
Cambridge, 1891. . 


C. THE PALESTINIAN TALMUD, 


§ 54. 


a. LATIN TRANSLATION. 


Blasius Ugolinus published in volumes XVII-XXX of his 
Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum (Venice 1755-65) the following 
treatises in Latin: Pesachim (vol XVII); Shekalim, Yoma, 
Succah, Rosh Hashanah, Taanith, Megilla, Chagiga, Betza, 
Moed Katan (vol. XVIII); Maaseroth, Maaser Sheni, Challah, 
Orlah, Biccurim (vol. XX); Sanhedrin, Maccoth (vol. XXV); 
Kiddushin, Sota, Kethuboth (vol. XXX). 


b. GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 


Joh. Jacob Rabe, besides translating Berachoth in connec- 
tion with that treatise in the Babylonian Gemara, as mentioned 
above, published: Der Talmudische Tractat Pea, tibersetzt und 


erlaiutert. Anspach, 1781. 
August Wiinsche, Der Jerusalemische Talmud in seinen 


haggadischen Bestandtheilen zum ersten Male in’s Deutsche 
tibertragen. Zurich, 1880. ; 


c. FRENCH TRANSLATION, 


Moise Schwab. Le Talmud de Jerusalem traduit pour la 
premiére fois X volumes. Paris, 1871-90. 


d. ENGLIsd TRANSLATION. 


M. Schwab, the author of the French translation just 
mentioned, published in English: The Talmud of Jerusalem. 
Vol. I Berachoth. London, 1886. 


CHAPTER XII. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 


OF MODERN WORKS AND MONOGRAPHS ON TALMUDIC SUBJECTS. 


(Arranged with reference to subjects and in alphabetical 


W. Bacher. 


6¢ 


$6 


Se Duck, 


M. Griinbaum. 


M. Giidemann. 


D. Hoffmann. 


Ad, Briill. 


order of authors). 


§ 55. 
AGADA,. 


Die Agada der Tannaiten. Strasburg, Als. 1884. 

Die Agada der Babylonischen Amoréer, Strasburg, 
Als. 1878. 

Die Agada der Palastinischen Amordaer, Strasburg, 
Als. 1891. 

Die Fabel im Talmud u. Midrasch (in Monatsschrift 
f. Geschichte u, Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, XXIV, 
1875; XXV, 1876; XXIX 1880; XXX, 1881; XXXII, 
1883; XX XIII, 1884). 

Beitrige zur vergleichenden Mythologie aus der Hag- 
gada (in Zeitschrift d. D. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, vol. 
XXXI, 1877). 

Mythenmischung in der Haggada (in Monatschrift f. 
Geschichte u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, vol. 
XXV, 1876). 

Die Antonius Agadoth im Talmud (in Magazin fiir 
Wissenschaft des Judenthums, vol. XIX, 1892). 


ARCHAEOLOGICAL. 


Trachten der Juden im nachbiblischen Alterthum 
Frankf. on the M. 1878. 


Franz Delitzsch. Jiidisches Handwerkerleben zur Zeit Jesu, Elangen, 


1879. Translated by B. Pick “Jewish Artisan Life.” 
New York, 1833. 


M. B. Friedlinder, Die Arbeit nach FPibel u. Talmud. Brinn, 1891. 


94 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


L. Herzfeld. Metrologische Voruntersuchungen, Geld und Gewicht 
der Juden bis zum Shluss des Talmuds (in Jahrbuch 
fiir Geschichte der Juden u. des Judenthums, vol. III 
pp. 95-191, Leipsic, 1863). 

Alex. Kohut. Ist das Schachspielim Talmud genannt? (Z. d. D. M. 
G. XLVI, 130-39). - 

Leopold Léw. Graphische Requisiten und Erzeugnisse bei den Juden, 
Leipsic, 1870-71. 


ae * Die Lebensalter in der Jiid. Literatur. Szegedin, 1875. 
B. Zuckerman. Ueber Talmudische Miinzen u. Gewichte. Breslau, 
1862. 
cs Das jiidische Maassystem, Breslau, 1867. 
BIOGRAPHICAL. 


Sam. Back. Elischa ben Abuja, quellenmassig dargestellt. Frankf. 
on the M., 1891. 

A. Blumenthal. Rabbi Meir, sein Leben u. Wirken. Frankf. 1889. 

M. Braunschweiger. Die Lehrer der Mischna, ihr Leben u. Wirken. 
Frankf. on the M., 1890. 


S. Fessler. Mar Samuel, der bedeutendste Amora, Breslau, 1879. 
M. Friedlinder. Geschichtsbilder aus der Zeit der Tanaiten u. Amoriaer. 
Briinn, 1879. 


S. Gelbhaus. R. Jehuda Janasi und die Redaction der Mischna. 
Vienna, 1876. 

D. Hoffmann. Mar Samuel, Rector der Academie zu Nahardea. Leipsic, 
1878. 

Armand Kaminka. Simon b. Jochai (chapter in the author’s Studien 
zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890). 

Raphael Lévy. Un Tanah (Rabbi Meir), Etude sur la vie et l’enseignement 
dun docteur Juif du II siécle. Paris 1883. 

M. I, Mihifelder. Rabh. Ein Lebensbild zur Geschichte des Talmud, 
Leipsic, 1873. 


J. Spitz. Rabban Jochanan b. Sakkai, Rector der Hochschule 
zu Jabneh. Berlin, 1883. 
delrenc Vie de Hillel Ancient. Paris, 1867. 


H. Zirndorf. Some Women in Israel (pp. 119-270 portraying distin- 


guished women of the Talmudic ag»). Philadelphia’ 
1892. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 95 


CHRONOLOGY AND CALENDAR. 


L, M. Lewisohn. Geschichte u. System des jiidischen Kalenderwesens. 
Leipsic, 1856. 

B, Zuckermann. Materialien zur Entwickelung der altjiidischen Zeit- 
rechnung. Breslau 1882. 


CUS OMS: 


Joseph Perles. Die jiidische Hochzeit in nachbiblischer Zeit. Leipsic, 
1860, 

Die Leichenfeierlichkeiten im nachbiblischen Juden- 
thum. Breslau, 1861. 

Remark. An English translation of both of these two monographs 
is embodied in ‘‘Hebrew Characteristics”, published by the American 
Jewish Publication Society. New York, 1875. . 

M. Fluegel. Gedanken tiber religidse Briuche und Anschauungen. 
Cincinnati, 1888. 


DiTAS Terr ACs, 


66 66 


Aaron Hahn. The Rabbinical Dialectics. A history of Dialecticians 
and Dialectics of the Mishna and Talmud, Cincinnati. 
1879. 


Ha DyUsC eA LON. 


Blach-Gudensberg. Das Paedagogische im Talmud. Halberstadt. 1880. 
M. Duschak. Schulgesetzgebung u. Methodik der alten Israeliten. 
Vienna, 1872. 
Sam. Marcus. Zur Schul-Paedagogik des Talmud. Berlin, 1866. 
Joseph Simon. L’éducation et linstruction d’aprés la Bible et le Talmud 
Leipsic, 1879. 


J. Wiesen. Geschichte und Methodik der Schulwesens im talmudi- 
schen Alterthum. Strasburg, 1892. 
Kye TCs: 
M. Bloch Die Ethik der Halacha, Budapest, 1886. 


Herman Cohen. Die Niachstenliebe im Talmud. Ein Gutachten. 
Marburg, 18°86. 

M. Duschuk. Die Moral der Evangelien u. des Talmuds. Brinn 1877, 

H, B. Fassel. Tugend-und Rechtslehre des Talmud. Vienna, 1848, 


96 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTROD UCTION. 


E. Griinebaum. Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums andern Bekentnissen 
gegentiber. Strasburg, 1878. 

M. Giidemann. Nachstenliebe. Vienna, 1890. 

Alex. Kohut. The Ethics of the Fathers. A series of lectures. New 


York, 1885. 

L. Lazarus. Zur Charakteristik der talmudischen Ethik. Breslau, 
1877. 

Mare. Lévy. Essai sur la morale de Talmud. Paris 1891. 

Luzzatto. Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von L. E. Igel, 


Breslau, 1870. 
S. Schaffer. Das Recht und seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmud- 
ischer Sitten, und Rechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 
N. J. Weinstein. Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Gebotes der Nachsten- 
liebe innerhalb des J udenthums, kritisch beleuchtet. 
Berlin, 1891. 


KEXEGESIS. 


H. S. Hirschfeld. Walachische Exegese. Berlin, 1840. 
os ie Die Hagadische Exegese. Berlin, 1847. 
S. Waldberg. Darke Hashinnuyim, on the methods of artificial inter- 
pretation of Scriptures in the Talmud and Midrash. 
(in Hebrew) Lemberg, 1870. 


GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY. 


A. Berliner. Beitrage zur Geographie u. Ethnographie Babyloniens 
im Talmud u. Midrasch. Berlin 1888. 

J. Derenbourg. Essai sur Vhistoire et la géographie de la Palestine 
daprés les Talmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques. 
Paris, 1867. 

H. Hildesheimer. Beitrage zur Geographie Palastinas. Berlin, 1886. 

Armand Kaminka. Studien zur Geschichte Galilaeas. Berlin, 1890. 

Ad. Neubauer. La géographie du Talmud. Mémoire couronné par 

. lacadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Paris, 1868, 


LA W. 
a. IN GENERAL. 


Jacques Levy. La jurisprudence du Pentateuque et du Talmud. 
Constantine. 1879. 


S. Mayer. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 97 


Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Romer. 
Leipsic, 1862-66. 


I. L. Saalschiitz. Das Mosaische Recht, nebst den vervollstaindigenden 


S. Schaffer. 


y Fae! El 


J. Selden, 


E. Hoffmann. 


I. Blumenstein. 
Z. Frankel. 


D. Fink. 


O. Bahr. 
| P. B. Benny. 
M. Duschak. 
J. First. 


E. Goitein. 


S. Mendelsohn, 


Julius Vargha. 


thalmudisch-rabbinischen Bestimmungen. 2-nd Edi- 
tion. Berlin, 1853. 
Das Recht u. seine Stellung zur Moral nach talmudischer 
Sitten-und Rechtslehre. Frankf. on the M., 1889. 
The Law (in the Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 12-82. 
Cincinnati, 1880). 

b. JUDICIAL COURTS. 


De Synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebrae- 
orum. London, 1650; Amsterd. 1679; Frankf., 1696. 
Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Heiligtbhums, 
Berlin, 1878. 


c. EvIDENCE IN Law. 


Die verschiedenen Eidesarten nach mosaisch-talmud- 
ischem Rechte. Frankf. on the M., 1883. 

Der Gerichtliche Beweis nach mosaisch talmudischem 
Rechte. Berlin. 1846. 

‘‘Miggo” als Rechtsbeweis im bab. Talm. Leipsic, 1891. 


d. CRIMINAL Law. 


Das Gesetz tiber falsche Zeugen, nach Bibel u, Talmud. 
Berlin, 1862. | 

The Criminal Code of the Jews. London, 1880. 

Das mosaisch-talmudische Strafrecht. Vienna, 1869. 
Das peinliche Rechtsverfahren im jiid. Alterthum. 
Heidelberg, 1870. 

Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmudischen Straf- 
recht (in Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaft d. J. Vol. XIX. 
The Criminal Jurisprudence of the ancient Hebrews 
compiled from the Talmud and other rabbinical 
writings. Baltimore, 1891. 


Defense in criminal cases with the ancient Hebrews, 
translated from the first chapter of the author’s large 
work ‘‘Vertheiaigungin Criminalfallen’’, and publisch- 
ed inthe Hebrew Review, Vol. I pp. 254-268. Cincinnati, 
1880. 


98 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


I, Wiesner. Der Bann in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung auf 
dem Boden des Judenthums. Leipsic, 1864. 
Thonisson. La peine de mort dans le Talmud. Brussels, 1886, 


e. CIVIL LAW. 


M. Bloch. Die Civilprocess-Ordnung nach mosaisch-rabbinischem 
Rechte. Budapest. 1882. 

H. B. Fassel. Das mosaisch-rabbinische Civilrecht. Gr. Kanischa. 
1852-54. 

ss os Das mosaisch-rabbinische Gerichtsverfahren in civil- 

rechtlischen Sachen. Gr. Kanischa, 1859. 

L. Auerbach. Das jiidische Obligationsrecht. Berlin, 1871. 

S.. Keyzer. Dissertatio de tutela secundum jus Talmudicum, Leyden 
1847, 


f. INHERITANCE AND TESTAMENT, 


L. Bodenheimer. Das Testament. Crefeld, 1847. 

Eduard Gans. Grundztige des mosaisch-talmudischen Erbrechts (in 
Zunz’ Zeitschrift fir die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 
p. 419 sq.). 

Moses Mendelssohn. Ritualgesetze der Juden, betreffend Erbschaften 
Vormundschaft, Testamente etc. Berlin, 1778, and 
several later editions. 

Joh. Selden. De Successionibus in bona defuncti ad leges Hebrae 
orum. London, 1646; Frankf., 1696. 


g. Po.icE Law. 


M. Bloch. Das mosaisch-talmudische Polizeirecht. Buda Pest, 
1873. Transated into English by I. W. Lilienthal in the 
Hebrew Review Vol. I, Cincinnati 1881. 


h. LAW oF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 

P. Buchholz. Die Familie nach mos.-talmud. Lehre. Breslau, 1867, 

M, Duschak. Das mosaisch-talmudische Eherecht. Vienna, 1864, 

Z. Frankel, Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts. Breslau, 
1860. 

S. Holdheim, Die Autonomie der Rabbinen und das Princip der 
jidischen Ehe. Schwerin, 1847, 

1, Lichtschein. Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talm. Auffassung. Leipsic, 
1879. 


M. Mielziner. 


Joh. Selden. 


I. Stern, 


M. Mielziner. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 99 


The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in ancient 
and modern times, and its relation to the law of the 
State. Cincinnati, 1884. 

Uxor Ebraica sive de nuptiis et divortiis etc. London, 
1646. 

Die Frauim Talmud. Zirich, 1879. 


i. LAwWs CONCERNING SLAVERY. 


Verhaltnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebrdern nach 
biblischen und talmudischen Quellen, Copenhagen, 
(Leipsic), 1859. 


An English translation of this treatise was published by Prof. H. 
I, Schmidt in the Gettysburg Evang. Review vol XIII, No 51, and 
reprinted in the Am. Jew’s Annual. Cincinnati, 1886. 


I. Winter, 
Zadok-Kahn. 


66 66 


A. Berliner. 
Ad. Briill 


N. Brill. 


Jos. Perles. 
G. Rilf. 


Mich. Sachs. 


Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden. Breslau, 1886. 
L’esclavage selon la Bible et le Talmud. © Paris, 1867, 
Sklaverei nach Bibel u. Talmud, Deutsch von Singer. 
Berlin, 1888. 


TAN, GAUs ED SeliGis: 


Beitrage zur hebréischen Grammatik im Talmud u, 
Midrasch. Berlin, 1879, 

Fremdsprachliche Redensarten u. Worter in den Tal- 
muden u. Midraschim. Leipsic, 1869. 
Fremdsprachliche Worter in den Talmuden u. Midra- 
schim (in Jahrbiicher fiir jiid. Geschichte u. Literatur I, 
128.220). Frankf. o. M., 1874. - 

Etymologische Studien zur Kunde der rabbinischen 
Sprache und Alterthtiimer. Breslau, 1871. 

Zur Lautlehre der aramdisch-talmudischen Dialocte. 
Breslau, 1879. 

Beitrage zur Sprach-und Alterthumsforschung. 2 
volumes. Berlin, 1852-54. 


MATHEMATICS. 


B, Zuckermann. Das Mathematische im Talmud, Beleuchtung und 


Elauterung der Talmudstellen mathematischen Inhalts. 
Breslau, 1878. 


100 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


MEDICINE, SURGERY etc. 

Jos. Bergel. Die Medizin der Talmudisten. Leipsic, 1885. 

Joach. Halpern. Beitraige zur Geschichte der talm. Chirurgie. Breslau, 
1869. 

A. H. Israels. Collectanea Gynaecologica ex Talmude Babylonico. 
Groningen, 1845. 

L. Katzenelsson. Die Osteologie der Talmudisten. Eine talmudisch- 
anatonische Studie (in Hebrew). St. Petersbourg, 188%. 

R. I. Wunderbar. Biblisch-talmudische Medicin, 2 volumes. Riga 
(Leipsic), 1850-60. 

NATURAL HISTORY AND SCIENCES. 

Jos. Bergel. Studien tiber die naturwissenschaftlichen Kenntnisse der 
Talmudisten. Leipsic, 1880. 

M. Duschak. Zur Botanik des Talmud. Buda Pest, 1870. 

L. Lewysohn. Die Zoologie des Talmuds. Frankf. on the M., 1858. 

Imm. Low. Aramiaische Pflanzennamen. Leipsic, 1881. 


PARSEEISM IN THE TALMUD. 
Alexander Kohut. Washat die talm. Eschatologie ausdem Parsismus 
aufgenommen? (in Z, d. D. M. G. vol. XXI pp. 552-91). 
Oe «“ Die jiidische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihrer 
- Abhangigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 
sf ‘© Die talmudisch-midraschische Adamssage in ihrer 
Riickbeziehung auf die pers. Yima und Meshiasage, 
in Z. d. D. M. G. XXV pp. 59-94. 
s «© Die Namen der pers. u. babylonischen Feste im Talmud 
(in Kobak’s Jeschurun, vol. VIII, 49-61). The same 
subject in Revue. des Etudes Juives, Vol. XXIV. 


PrOttelen ay: 
S. Sekles, The Poetry of the Talmud. New York, 1880. 
PROVERBS, MAXIMS, PARABLES. 
L. Dukes. Rabbinische Blumenlese. Leipsic, 1844. 
6 ¢ Rabbinische Spruchkunde. ‘Vienna, 1851. 


J. R. Firstenthal. Rabbinische Anthologie. Breslau, 1834. 

Giuseppe Levi. Parabeln, Legenden u. Gedanken aus Talmud u. 
Midrasch,aus dem Italienischen ins Deutsche tibetragen 
von L. Seligmann. Leipsic, 1863. 

Léwenstein. Sentenzen, Spriiche u. Lebensregeln aus dem Talmud, 
Berlin, 1887. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 101 


PS, C HOT OIGsy: 
M. Jacobson. Versuch einer Psychologie des Talmud. Hamburg, 
1878, 
I. Wiesner. Zur talmudischen Psychologie (in Magazin fiir judische 
Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. I, 1874, and II, 1875). 


RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY. 


M. Friedlinder. Ben Dosaund seine Zeit, oder Einfluss der heidnischen 
Philosophie auf das Judenthum u. Christenthum. 
Prague, 1872. 

M. Giidemann. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien. Leipsic, 1876. 


M. Joel. Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des II 
Jahrhunderts. Breslau, 1880. 
A, Nager, Die Religionsphilosophie des Talmud. Leipsic, 1864, 


SUPERNATURALISM AND SUPERSTITION, 


Gideon Brecher. Das Transcendentale, Magik und magische Heilarten 
im Talmud. Vienna, 1850. 

David Joel. Der Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu 
demselben. 2 parts. Breslau, 1881-83. 

Alex. Kohut. Jiidische Angelologie u. Daemonologie in ihrer Abhiin- 
gigkeit vom Parsismus. Leipsic, 1866. 

Sal, Thean. Das Princip des planetarischen Einflusses nach der 
Anschauung des Talmud. Vienna, 1876, 

S, Wolffsohn. Oneirologie im Talmud, oder der Traum nach Auffas- 
sung des Talmuds. Breslau, 1874. 


POPULAR TREATISES AND LECTURES ON THE TALMUD. 


Tobias Cohn. Der Talmud. Ein Vortrag. Vienna, 1866. 

Emanuel Deutsch. What is the Talmud? (inthe Quarterly Review for 
October, 1867, reprinted in the Literary Remains, 
New York, 1874). 

M. Ehrentheil. Der Geist des Talmud. Breslau, 1887, 

Karl Fischer. Gutmeinung tiber den Talmud. Vienna, 1883. 

Sams. Raph. Hirsch. Beziehung des Talmuds zum Judenthum und zur 
sozialen Stellung seiner Bekenner. Frankf. o. M., 1884, 

P,. I. Hershon. Talmudic Miscellany. London, 1880, 


102 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


P. L. Hershon. Treasures of the Talmud. London, 1882. 

Abram S. Isaacs. Stories from the Rabbis. New York. 1893. 

A, Jellinek Der Talmud. Zwei Reden. Vienna, 1865. 
Der Talmndjude. 4 Reden. Vienna, 1882-83. 

M. Joel. Gutachten tiber den Talmud. Breslau, 1877. 

Albert Katz. Der wahre Talmudjude. Die wichtigsten Grundsatze 
des talmudischen Schriftthums iber das sittliche Leben 
des Menschen. Berlin, 1893. 

S. Klein. Die Wahrheit tiber den Talmud, (aus dem Franzésischen 
“Ta verité sur le Talmud”, tibersetzt von S. Mannheimer, 
Basel, 1860. 

Isidore Lueb. La Controverse sur le Talmud sous Saint Louis, Paris, 
1881. 

H. Polano. The Talmud, Selections from the contents of that an- 
cient book. London, 1876. 

Ludwig Philippson. Zur Characteristik des Talmuds (in ‘‘Welt- 
bewegende Fragen’. Vol. II, pp. 349-416. Leipsic, 


1869). 
Em. Schreiber. The Talmud. A series of (4) Lectures. Denver, 1884. 
L. Stern. Ueber den Talmud. Vortrag. Wurzburg, 1875. 
J. Stern. Lichtstrahlen aus dem Talmud. Zurich, 1883. 


A. A. Wolff. Talmudfjender (the Enemies of the Talmud),in Danish. 
Copenhagen, 1878. 
August Wiinsche. Der Talmud. Eine Skizze. Zurich, 1879. 


CHAPTER XIII. 
OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 
§ 57. 


No literary monument of antiquity has ever been subject to 
so different and opposite views and opinions, as the Talmud. Its 
strict followers generally looked upon it as the very embodiment 
of wisdom and sagacity, and as a work whose authority was 
second only to that of the Bible. In the non-Jewish literature 
it was often decried as ‘“‘one of the most repulsive books that 
exist”, as ‘‘a confused medley of perverted logic, absurd subtile- 
ties, foolish tales and fables, and full of profanity, superstition 
and even obscenity”, or at the most, as ‘‘an immense heap of 
rubbish at the bottom of which some stray pearls of Hastern 
wisdom are hidden.” 

It is certain that many of those who thus assumed to pass 
a condemning judgment upon the gigantic work of the Talmud 
never read nor were able to read a single page of the same in the 
original, but were prompted by religious prejudice and antag- 
onism, or they based their verdict merely on those disconnected 
and often distorted passages which Hisenmenger and his consorts 
and followers picked out from the Talmud for hostile purposes. 

Christian scholars who had a deeper insight into the Talmud- 
ical literature, without being blinded by religious prejudices, 
expressed themselves quite differently on the character and the 
merits of that work, as may be seen from the following few 
quotations. 

Johann Buxtorf, in the preface to his Lexicon Chald. et 
Talmudicum, says: ‘‘The Talmud contains many legal, medical, 
physical, ethical, political, astronomical, and otner excellent 
documents of sciences, which admirably commend the history of 
that nation and time; it contains also luminous decisions of an- 
tiquity; excellent sayings; deep thoughts, full of grace and sense; 
and numerous expressions which make the reader not only better, 
but also more wise and learned, and which, like unto flashing 


704 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


jewels, grace the Hebrew speech not less than all those Greck 
and Roman phrases adorn their languages.” 

Other favorable opinions expressed by Christian scholars of 
the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries are collected in Karl 
Fischer’s ‘‘(Gutmeinung iiber den Talmud der Hebrier.” Vienna, 
1883. 

Of such scholars as belong to our time, the following may be 
quoted here. 

The late Prof. Delitesch in his ‘‘ Jédisches Handwerkerleben 
zur Lett Jesu’ Says: 


‘Those who have not in some degree accomplished the 
extremely difficult task of reading this work for themselves, will 
hardly be able to form a clear idea of this polynomical colossus. 
It is an immense speaking-hall, in which thousands and tens of 
thousands of voices, of at least five centuries, are heard to com- 
mingle. A law, as we all know from experience, can never be 
so precisely formulated that there does not remain room for 
various interpretations; and question upon question constantly 
arises as to the application of it to the endless multiplicity of the 
existing relations of life. Just imagine about ten thousand 
decrees concerning Jewish life classified according to the spheres 
of life, and in addition to these, about flve hundred scribes and 
lawyers, mostly from Palestine and Babylon, taking up one after 
another of these decrees as the topic of examination and debate, 
and, discussing with hair-splitting acuteness, every shade of mean- 
ing and practical application; and imagine, further, that tbe finc- 
spun thread of this interpretation of decrees is frequently lost in 
digressions, and that, after having traversed long distances of such 
desert-sand, you find, here and there, an oasis, consisting of 
sayings and accounts of more general interest. Then you may 
have some slight idea of this vast, and ofits kind, unique, juridic 
codex, compared with whose compass all the law-books of other 
nations are but Lilliputians, and beside whose variegated, buzzing 
market din, they represent but quiet study-chambers,” 


J. Alexander, in his book on The Jews; oy Past, Preseny 
and Future (London, 1870), says: 


OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 105 


“The Talmud, as it now stands, is almost the whole literature 
of the Jews during a thousand years. Commentator followed 
upon commentator, till at last the whole became an immense 
bulk; the original Babylonian Talmud alone consists of 2947 folio 
pages. Out ofsuch literature it is easy to make quotations which 
may throw an odium over the whole. But fancy ifthe production 
ofathousand years of English literature, say, from the ‘‘History” 
of the venerable Bede to Milton’s ‘‘Paradise Lost,” were thrown 
together into a number of uniform folios, and judged in like man- 
ner; if because some superstitions monks wrote silly ‘‘Lives of 
Saints,” therefore the works of John Bunyan should also be 
considered worthless. The absurdity is too obvious to require 
another word from me. Such, however, is the continual treat- 
ment the Talmud receives both at the hand of its friends and of 
its enemies. Both will find it easy to quote in behalf of their 
preconceived notions, but the earnest student will rather try to 
weigh the matter impartially, retain the good he can find even in 
the Talmud, and reject what will not stand the test of God’s word.”’ 


Tne impartial view of the Talmud taken by modern Jewish 
scholars may be seen from the following opinion expressed by 
the late Prof. Graetz in his ‘History of the Jews” (vol. IV. 
308 sq.). 

‘‘The Talmud must not be considered as an ordinary literary 
work consisting of twelve folios; it bears not the least internal 
resemblance to a single literary production; but forms a world 
of its own which must be judged according to its own laws. It 
is, therefore, extremely difficult to furnish a specific sketch of the 
Talmud, seeing that a familiar standard or analogy is wanting. 
And however thoroughly a man of consummate talent may have 
penetrated its spirit and become conversant with its peculiarities, 
he would scarcely succeed in such a task. It may, in some 
respects, be compared with the Patristic literature, which sprang 
up simultaneously. But on closer inspection, this comparison 
will also fail.... 

The Talmud has at different times been variously judged 
on the most heterogeneous assumptions; it has been condemned 
and consigned to the flames, simply because it was presente 


106 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRDUCTION. 


in its unfavorable aspect without taking into consideration its 
actual merits. It cannot be denied that the Babylonian Tal- 
mud labors under some defects, like any other mental product, 
which pursues a single course with inexorable consistency and 
undeviating dogmatism. These defects may be classified under 
four heads: the Talmud contains some unessential and trivial 
subjects, which it treats with much importance and a serious 
air; it has adopted from its Persian surroundings superstitious 
practices and views, which. presuppose the agency of interme- 
diate spiritual beings, witchcraft, exorcising formulas, magical 
cures and interpretations of dreams and, hence, are in conflict 
with the spirit of Judaism; it further contains several uncharit- 
able utterances and provisions against members of other na- 
tions and creeds; lastly it favors a bad interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, absurd, forced and frequently false commentations. For 
these faults the whole Talmud has been held responsible and 
been denounced as a work devoted to trifles, as a source of im- 
morality and trickery, without taking into consideration, that 
it is not a work ofa single author who must be responsible 
for every word, and if it be so, then the whole Jewish people 
was its author. Over six centuries are crystallized in the Tal- 
-Iud with animated distinctness, in their peculiar costumes, 
modes of speech and of thought, so to say aliterary Herculaneum 
and Pompeii, not weakened by artistic imitation, which trans- 
fers a colossal picture to the narrow limits of a miniature. It is, 
therefore, no wonder, if inthis world sublime and mean, great 
and small, serious and ridiculous, Jewish and heathen elements, 
the altar and the ashes, are found in motley mixture. Those 
odious dicta of which Jew-haters have taken hold, were in 
most cases nothing else but the utterances of a momentary in- 
dignatian, to which an individual had given vent and which were 
preserved and embodied in the Talmud by over-zealous disci- 
ples, who were unwilling to omit a single expression of the 
revered ancients. But these utterances are richly counterbal- 
anced by the maxims of benevolence and philanthropy towards 
every man, regardless of creed and nationality, which are also 
preserved inthe Talmud. As counterpoise to the rank super- 


OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD, 107 


stition, there are found therein sharp warnings against supersti- 
tious, heathen practices (Darke Emori), to which subject a 
whole section, under the name of Perek Emorai, is devoted.1 

“The Babylonian Talmud is especially characterized and 
distinguished from the Palestinian, by high-soaring contempla- 
tions, a keen understanding, and flashes of thought which fit- 
fully dart through the mental horizon. An incalculable store 
of ideas and incentives to thinking is treasured in the Talmud, 
but not in the form of finished themes that may be appropriated 
in a semi-somnolent state, but with the fresh coloring of their 
inception. The Babylonian Talmud leads into the laboratory 
of thought, and its ideas may be traced from their embryonic 
motion up to a giddy height, whither they at times soar into the 
region of the incomprehensible. For this reason it became, 
more than the Jerusalemean, the national property, the vital 
breath, the soul of the Jewish people——”. 


WHY STUDY THE TALMUD ? 
§ 58. 


Some years ago, the author addressed the Classes of the 
Hebrew Union College on this question. An abstract of that 
address may find here a proper place for the benefit of younger 
students: 

Upon resuming our labors for a new scholastic year, I wish 
to address the students regarding that branch of instruction 
which I have the privilege of teaching in the collegiate classes 
of this institution. I wish to answer the question: 


FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO WE STUDY THE TALMUD? 


There was a time—and it is not so very long since it passed 
by—there was a time when such a question would scarcely 
have entered into the mind of one who was preparing for the 
Jewish ministry. For the Talmud was then still regarded as 
theembodiment of all religious knowledge ail Jewish lore. 
Its authority was considered second only to that of the Bible, 
its study regarded asa religious service, a God-pleasing work in 


1 Sabbath 66a; Toseptha ch. VII, VIII. 


108 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


which all pious and literate men in Israel were engaged, even 
those who did not aspire to a rabbinical office. He, to whom 
the Talmud was a ¢erra incognita was looked upon as an Am 
fTfa’arets, a rustic and illiterate man, who had no right to ex- 
press an opinion in religious matters. How then could he who 
wanted to become a religious guide and leader in Israel ask, 
for what purpose is the Talmud to be studied ? The Talmudic 
literature was the very source of the Jewish law. By it all 
conditions of the religious and moral life were ordered. How 
could a rabbi expect to be able to answer and decide the many 
religious questions laid before him daily, without a thorough 
acquaintance with that source ? 

But it is quite different in our time, which looks upon the 
Talmud with less reverential eyes. The mere study of its lite- 
rature is not any longer considered a religious act that secures 
eternal bliss and salvation; neither is the Talmud any longer 
regarded as the highest authority by whose dicta questions of 
religion and conscience are to be finally decided. 

Of what use is the study of the Talmud in our time ? Is it 
nowadays absolutely necessary even for the Jewish theologian, 
yr aJewish minister,to cultivate this hard and abstruse braneh 
of literature ? Would it not be more useful if our students in- 
stead of devoting a part of their valuable time to this obsolete 
and antiquated study would apply it to some other branch of 
knowledge which is of more import to, and has more bearing 
upon the present time? 

It sometimes seemed to me as if I could read this question 
from the faces of some of our students during the Talmudic in- 
struction, especially when we ‘ust happened to have before us 
some abstruse passages in the Talmud in which seemingly quite 
indifferent and trifling subjects are minutely treated in lengthy 
discussions, or where the whole train of thought widely differs 
from modern conception and modern ways of thinking. 

Nay, Ihave even heard such a question from the tips of 
men who take great interest in our college, of earnest and judi- 
cious men who are highly educated and versed in our literature 
and who themselves in their yonth imbibed spiritual draughts 


OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 10¢ 


from the Talmudic fountain. Why trouble our students with 
that irksome and useless branch of literature. why not instead 
of it rather take up other subjects of more modern thought? 


Let us, therefore, shortly consider the question: For what 
purpose do we study the Talmud, or why is that study wndispen- 
sable for every one who prepares for the Jewish ministry ? 


In the first place, my young friends, I wish to call your at 
tention to the fact that the Talmud is a product of the mental 
labors of our sages and teachers during a period of eight hun- 
dred to one thousand years, and that the pages of this volumin- 
ous literary work offer a natural reflection of whatever the 
Jewish mind has thought, perceived and felt during that long 
period under the most different circumstances and times, under 
joyful and gloomy events, under elevating and oppressing in- 
Auences. 


I beg you to consider furthermore what a powerful and 
decided influence this gigantic literary work after its final con- 
clusion has exercised upon the mind and the religious and mo- 
rat life of the professors of Judaism during fourteen centuries 
up to our time. Consider, how it is to be ascribed to their 
general occupation with, and veneration for the Talmud that 
our ancestors during the dark centuries of the Middle Ages did 
not become mentally hebetated and morally corrupted, in spite 
of the degradation and systematic demoralization which they 
had been exposed to. For while the study of the more dialectic 
part of that literature preserved their intellectual powers ever 
fresh and active and developed some of the greatest minds, the 
reading of those popular sayings and impressive moral and re- 
ligious maxims with which the Talmudic writings are so amply 
provided, fostered even within our masses that unshaken faith- 
fulness and that unparalleled firmness of character by which 
they resisted all persecutions and all alluring temptations. 


Take all this into gonsideration, and you will perceive that 
none can expect to know and understand Judaism as histori- 
eally developed, without knowing the Talmud, without being 
familiar with the spirit cf that vast literature which proved 


110 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


such a powerful agency in the development of Judaism and in 
its preservation. 

Let me also tell you, that he is greatly mistaken who ima 
gines that modern Judaism can entirely discard and disregard 
the Talmud in religious questions. Although its authority is 
not any longer respected as absolutely binding, albeit under. 
the changed circumstances in which we are living, many laws 
and customs treated and enjoined in the Talmud have become 
obsolete and impracticable, and though many religious views ex- 
pressed by the Talmudists are rejected as incompatible with 
modern thoughts and conceptions, it is a fact, that Juda- 
ism nowadays still rests on the foundation which is laid down 
inthe Talmud. Thus for instance, the elements of our ritual 
prayers and the arrangement of our public service, our festive 
calendar and the celebration of some of our holiest festivals, 
the marriage law and innumerable forms and customs of the re- 
ligious life are, though more or less modified and fashioned ac- 
cording to the demands of our time, still on the whole permeat- 
ed and governed by the Talmudic principles and regulations. 

You can therefore never expect to have a full and clear 
insight into our relgious institutions without being able to go 
to the source from which they emanated. 

I could also speak of the great importance of the Talmud 
in so far as it contains a vast fund of informations which are of 
decided value to general history and literature and to different 
branches of science, but I will remind you only of its great sig- 
nificance in regard to two branches of knowledge which are of 
vital import to Jewish theology and the Jewish ministry. I 
refer to the interpretation of the Bible and to Ethics. 

The great value of the Talmud for Bible exegesis and Bible 
criticism is generally acknowledged even by non-Jewish scholars. 

In regard to its value for Hthics I shall quote here a pas- 
sagefroman elaborate and lucid article on the Talmud which the 
venerable Rabbi Dr. Samuel Adler in New York published lately 
in one of the American Encyclopedias. He says: 

‘With the consideration of the ethical significance of the 
Talmud we approach the highest level, the crowning portion of 


OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 111 


the whole work. Not but that we meet with passages that 
must be rejected by a pure morality; prevailing views and em- 
bittering experiences have certainly exercised a disturbing in- 
fluence on the ethical views of various spiritual heroes of the 
Talmud; but these are isolated phenomena, and disappear, com- 
pared with the moral elevation and purity of the overwhelming 
majority of the men of the Talmud, and compared with the spirit 
that animates the work as a whole. What is laid down as the 
moral law in the Talmud can still defy scrutiny at the present 
day; and the very numerous examples of high moral views and 
actions on the part of the Talmudists are such as can not be 
found in any work of antiquity, and must still excite the admir- 
ation of the reader of the present day, in spite of the ceremonial 
fetters which they bore, and in spite of the occasional narrow- 
ness of their point of view.” 


To impress you the more with the necessity of the Talmudic 
studies for a clear conception of Judaism and its history, I could 
also quote the opinions of many of our greatest scholars, but 
shall confine myself only to a quotation from the writings of two 
of our most renowned scholars whom none will suspect of hav- 
ing been biased by a too great predilection for the Talmud; one 
is the late Dr. Geiger, and the other our great historian, the 
late Dr. Jost. 


k 
Geiger (Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte I. p. 155) in 
speaking of the Talmud and the rabbinical literature, says: 


“Gigantic works, productions of gloomy and brighter per- 
iods are here before us, monuments of thought and intellectual 
labor; they excite onr admiration. I do not indorse every 
word of the Talmud, nor every idea expressed by the teachers 
in the time of the Middle Ages, but I would not miss a tittle 
thereof. They contain an acumen and power of thought which 
fill us with reverénce for the spirit that animated our ancestors, 
a fulness of sound sense, salutary maxims—a freshness of opinion 
often bursts upon us that even to this day exercises its enlive- 
ning and inspiring effect.” 


112 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION. 


Jost in his Geschichte des Judenthum's und sciner Secten IU., 
202, characterizes the Talmud by the following masterly words: 

“The Talmud is a great mine, in which are imbedded all 
varieties of metals and ores. Here may be found all kinds of 
valuables, the finest gold and rarest gems, as also the merest 
dross. Much has been unearthed that has realized countless 
profit to the world. The great spiritual work whose outcome 
has been apparent in the advancement of religion has shown 
that the Talmud is not only of incalculable value in the pursuit 
of wisdom, but that it has a self-evident significance for all times, 
which can not be shown by any mere extracts from its pages, 
and that it can not be disregarded on the plea of its antiquit 
as valueless in the knowledge of the Jewish religion. Indeed 
it is and must remain the chief source of this knowledge, and 
particularly ofthe historical development of the Jewish religion. 
More than this, it is the abode of that spirit which has inspired 
that religion, these many centuries, that spirit from which even 
those who sought to counteract it could not escape. It is and 
willremain a labyrinth with deep shafts and openings, in which 
isolated spirits toil with tireless activity, a labyrinth which 
offers rich rewards to those who enter impelled by the 
desire to gain, not without hidden dangers to those who venture 
wantonly into its mazes and absorb its deadly vapors. Re- 
ligion has created this work, not indeed to give utterance in an 
unsatisfactory way to the great questions of Deity and Nature, 
Mortality and Eternity, and not to carry on controversies upon 
the proper formulation of articles of faith, but to give expres- 
sion to a religion of deed, a religion designed to accompany 
man from the first steps in his education until he reaches the 
grave, and beyond it; a guide by which his desires and actions 
are to be regulated at every moment, by which all his move- 
ments are to be guarded, that takes care even of his food and 
drink, of his pleasures and pains, of his mirth and sorrow, and 
seeks to elevate him, at all times, to an enunciation of the pur- 
est faith. 

It is thus that this spirit, which breathes from the 'l'almud, 
enters into the nation’s inmost life. It offers repeated recitals 


OPINIONS ON THE VALUE OF THE TALMUD. 113 


of the various modes of thinking, practising, believing, of the 
true and false representations, of hopes and longings, of know- 
ledge and error, of the great lessons of fate, of undertakings 
and their consequences, of utterances and their effects, of per- 
sons and their talents and inaptitudes, of words and examples, 
of customs, both in matters of public worship and private life; 
in short, of all the happenings, past or cotemporary, in the 
time which the Talmud comprises, 2. ¢., a period of nearly one 
thousand years, excluding the Bible times. 


Hence, also, its great value to antiquarians in the frequent 
allusions to facts, opinions and statements, to modes of expres- 
sion and grammatical construction, to peculiarities of every 
kind, which at the same time afford a view of the development 
of mankind, such as no other work of the past gives. 


To treat the Talmud with scorn because of its oddnes, on 
account of much that it contains that does not conform to our 
maturer modes of thinking, because of its evident errors and 
misconceptions—errors from ignorance or errors in copying,— 
to throw it overboard, as it were, as useless ballast, would be 
to insult all history, to deprive it of one of its strongest limbs, to 
dismember it. 

To dam up its channels by taking away the Talmud, would 
be to close the access to the head waters and living sources of 
the Jewish religion, and thus leave her again in a desert land, 
after the tables of the law have already called forth a world of 
life and activity. It would be turning one’s back, as it were, 
denying and disregarding one’s own. ‘There is a historical jus- 
tification for the sharply defined modes of worship and religious 
forms that have their embodiment in set words and in fixed 
deeds. For this we must look to the Talmud. Judaism is 


rooted in the Talmud and would be tossed about in mid-air if — 


torn from its soil,or require a new planting and a new growth.” 
In conclusion, my young friends, let me say this: 
If our College had no other purpose than to graduate com- 
mon Sabbath school teachers who should be able to occasional- 
ly deliver popular though superficial lectures, the study of the 


—s* 


114 HISTORICAL AND LITERARY INTRODUCTION, 


Talmud as wellas that of our rabbinical and philosophical litera- 
ture, might have been stricken from the course of your studies. 
But our College has a higher aim and object. Its object is to 
educate future guides and leaders of our congregations, to edu- 
cate banner-bearers of Judaism, representatives and cultivators 
of Jewish knowledge and literature. 


You can never expect to answer this purpose without a 
thorough knowledg> of, and familiarity with, that vast literature 
that offers us the means to follow and understand the religious 
formation, the growth and the entire course of development of 
Judaism from its beginning to the present time.” 


AT elie 


LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 





LEGAL HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 
INTRODUCTION. 


a. DEFINITION. 


Sat 


Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation or of explain- 
ing the meaning ofan author’s words, according to certain 
rules. The term is especially applied to the exegesis or inter- 
pretation of the sacred Scripture. 

Although hermeneutics and exegesis are synonyms, as both 
words from which they are derived éeunvevery and éény ei6San 
mean to explain, interpret, still literary usage makes that differ- 
ence betweenthem, that the term ermeneutics refers to that 
branch of science which establishes the principles and rules of 
interpretation, while exegesis is the actual application of those 
principles and rules. 

By Legal Hermeneutics of the Talmud we understand 
an exposition of those principles and rules which the teachers 
of the Talmud established in their interpretation of the Biblic- 
al Law. 


b. METHODS OF INTERPRETATION. 


§ 2. 


The Ta'mud distinguishes between two methods of Script- 
ural interpretation, one which is termed /esha/, and the 
other Derash. 


Peshat (ww) is the plain interpretation, where a law or a 
passage in Scripture is explained in the most natural way ac- 
cording to the letter, the grammatical construction, and 
the spirit of the passage. Hence the talmudic phrase: muws 
Spt the plain meaning, the immediate and primary sense of a 
Scriptural passage (Chullin 6a). 


118 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


Derash (from ws to search, investigate) is that method 
by which it is intended, for certain reasons, to interpret a 
passage in a more artificial way which often deviates from the 
plain aud natural meaning. The result of this method of inter- 
pretation is termed yy that which is searched out, the artifi- 
cial deduction, as ‘5 wot wast my this artificial interpretation 
was made by that certain teacher, Mishna Shekalim VI, 6. 

As an illustration of these two methods of interpretation 
we refer to the following passage in Deut. XXIV, 16. inp 5 
AAV DS 2p OSs 

‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, 
neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers.” The 
plain and natural meaning of this passage is that the family of a 
criminal shall not be involved in his punishment. But the arti- 
ficial interpretation of the Rabbis which is also adopted in the 
Targum Onkelos takes the word 5y in the sense of mya 
through the testimony, and explains this passage to the effect 
that the testimony of relatives must never be accepted in a crim- 
inal or civil case. Talm. Sanhedrin fol. 27b. 


c. TWO KINDS oF MIDRASH. 


Se. 


There are two kinds of Midrash. Where the interprcta- 
tion bears on the enactment or determination of a law, be it 
a ritual, ceremonial, civil, or criminal law, it is called wasn 
nbn Interpretation of Halacha, or legal interpretation. 

But where the Midrash does not concern legal enactments 
and provisions, but merely inquires into the meaning and signi- 
ficance of the laws or where it only uses the words of Scripture 
as a vehicle to convey a moral teaching or a religious instruc- 
tion and consolation, it is called A738 wasy Interpretation of 
the Agada, homiletical interpretation. 

The following examples will illustrate both kinds of Midrash. 

1) In Lev. XIX, 3 the law reads: IN7°M P2Ni ION woN 
‘‘Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father”. In the 
interpretation of this passage the Rabbis explain that the ex- 


INTRODUCTION. 119 


pression ws every man must here not be taken in its literal 
sense, as if referring to the man (the son) only, and not also to 
woman (the daughter), for the plural form ‘‘ye shall fear” in- 
cludes the daughter as wellas the son in this divine injunction 
of filial respect and obedience: 


2 pao TWN wes Noe 05 pS wo 
Dw [SD MTN IDS NInw 
Talm. Kiddushin 30b. 


This is Midrash Halacha, as it concerns the determination 
of the law. 


Commenting on the same passage, the Rabbis further ex- 
plain why in this passage the first place is given to the mother, 
while in the decalogue where filial love to parents is command- 
ed, the father is mentioned first. The reason offered is, 
that as a rule children fear the father, but love the mother more 
particularly. (Ibid. fol. 31a.) This explanation belongs rather 
to the Agada. 

2) In Exodus XX, 25 the law reads: ‘‘And if thou wilt 
make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it (jms) of 
hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy iron tool upon it, thou hast 
polluted it.” 

The Midrash Halacha of this passage emphasizes the ob- 
jective pronoun WAS and concludes that the prohibition of 
hewn stones is restricted to the altar only, but in building the 
temple such stones may be used: 


S595 mrs TIS TOs ODN A TID AN ON 1D 
Mechilta, Yithro XI. 


The Midrash Agada to this passage explains ingeniously 
the reason why the application of iron is here called a pollution 
of the altar; it is because iron abridges life, the altar prolongs 
it; iron causes destruction and misery, the altar produces re- 
conciliation between God and man; and therefore the use of 
iron cannot be allowed in making the altar. (Mechilta ibid. ; 
compare also Mishna Middoth III, 4.) 


120 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


The hermeneutic rules for Midrash Agada resemble in 
many respects those of Midrash Halacha, in others they differ. 
We propose to treat here especially of the Hermeneutics of 
the Halacha. 


ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF MIDRASH HALACHA. 


a. CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NECESSITATED ARTIFICIAL 
INTERPRETATION, 


§ 4, 


Ever since the time of Ezra, the Scribe, and especially 
since the religious and political revival under the Maccabees, 
the law embodied in the Pentateuch was generally looked upon 
as the rule of Israel’s life. But side by side with this wrztten 
law, ANDaw ANN, went an unwritten, oral law Fb oyow Pinhiate 


This consisted partly of a vast store of religious and na- 
tional customs and usages which had been established in the 
course of several centuries and handed down orally from gen- 
eration to generation; partly of decrees and ordinances enacted 
according to exigencies of the changed times and cir- 
cumstances by the Sopherim and the succeeding authorities, 
the Sanhedrin. 

As long as the validity of this oral law had not been 
questioned, there was no need of founding it on a Scriptural 
basis. It stood on its own footing, and was shielded by the 
authority of tradition. From the time hovever when the 

~Sadducean ideas began to spread, which tended to undermine 
the authority of the traditional law and reject everything not_ 
founded on the Scriptures, the effort was made by the teachers 
to place the traditions under the shield of the word of the 
Thora. To accomplish this task, the plain and natural inter- 
pretation did not always suffice. More artificial methods had 
to be devised by which the sphere of the written law could be 
extended so as to offer a basis and support for every traditional 
law and observance, and, at the same time, to enrich the sub- 
stance of this law with new provisions for cases not yet provi- 


INTRODUCTION. 12) 


ded for. This artificial interpretation which originated in the 
urgent desire to ingraft the traditions on the stem of Seripture 
or harmonize the oral with the written law, could, of course, in 
many instances not be effected without strained constructions 
and the exercise of some violence on the biblical text,’ as is illus- 
trated in the following example. 

It was arule of law established by tradition, firstly, that 
judicial decisions are rendered by a majority of votes; secondly 
that in capital cases, the majority of one vote was sufficient for 
the acquittal, but for the condemnation a majority of at least 
two votes was required; thirdly that in taking the votes in a 
criminal case, it must be commenced from the youngest judge, 
in order that his opinion and vote shall not be influenced by 
that of his older colleagues. 

When the question came up to find a biblical basis for 
these rules, reference was made to the following passage in Ex. 
XXIII, 2 which reads: 

moiyad> oan sans monn xd 
mond oan sins minad an Sp mayn so 

“Thou shalt not follow the many to evil, neither shalt thou 
speak in a case to deviate after the many to pervert justice”. 

In its simple sense this passage is a warning for the judge 
as well as for the witness not to be influenced by the unjust 


1 This effort to base traditional institutions and usages on the 
written law is not without a certain parallel-though under quite differ- 
ent circumstances and influences—in the history of jurisprudence . 
among other nations, as may be seen from the following interesting 
notice in Lieber’s ‘‘Legal and Political Hermeneutics,” page 239. Speak- 
ing of the law which grew upin the course of centuries by the combina- 
tion of the lex scripta, or Roman law, with the customs of the various 
nations that received it, he says: ‘‘A favorite field for the exercise of 
professional ingenuity was the interpretation of the Roman law in such 
manner as to find therein formal written authority for the institutions, 
rules and usages that the Germanic races had inherited from their 
ancestors. Fora century past it has been one of the chief tasks of the 
continental jurists, and especially of the class among them known as 
Germanists, to restore these remains of national law to their original 
shape, free from the distortions and disguises forced upon them by 
this Romanizing process.” 


122 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


opinion of the multitude in a law suit, but to follow his own 
conviction in giving his vote or his testimony. But the arti- 
ficial interpretation forced upon this passage a different mean- 
ing. By separating the last three words mind od “ns from 
the context and forming them as aseparate sentence:the Rabbis 
found therein an express biblical precept ‘‘to lean to the major- 
ity”, that is, to decide doubtful cases by a majority of votes. 
The first part of the passage ‘‘thou shalt not follow the many 
to evil” was interpreted to mean ‘‘do not follow the simple maj- 
ority (of one) for condemnation, as for the acquittal, but it re- 
quires at least a majority of two votes to condemn the accused 
(Mishna Sanhedrin I, 6) 


The word 3% in the middle part of the passage, being 
here exceptionally written in the text without a mater lectionis 
35, So as to admit the word to be read RadA (the superior), one 
of the Babylonian teachers made use of this circumstance to in- 
terpret a5 Sy myn x5 “thou shalt not express thy opinion af- 
ter the superior”, hence the younger members of a criminal 
court have to vote first (Talm. Sanhedrin 36a). 

Conclusions derived by authoritative interpretations from 
the Mosaic Law were, in general, endowed with the same au- 
thority and sanctity as the clear utterances of that Law, and 
termed FANN jp or, in the Aramaic form, Sn (derived 
from the Biblical law). 


In many instances, however, the Talmudic teachers freely 
admit that the meaning which they put upon the text was not 
the plain and natural interpretation; that ‘‘the natural sense 
ofa passage must never be lost sight of”’, and that their strain- 


> Maimonides (‘3 wyw nyypn ‘p) holds that laws derived from 
the Mosaic law by means of the hermeneutic rules are, in general, not 
to be regarded as biblical laws (A7\nn jd) except when expressly char- 
acterized as such in the Talmud. But this somewhat rational view 
is strongly criticized by Nachmanides (in his annotations to that book) 
who shows that from the Talmudical standpoint every law which 
the Rabbis derived by the authoritative interpretation from sacred 
Scripture, has the character and sanctity of a Mosaic Law. 


PDIWD MO NY Spon psx Sabbath 63a; Yebamoth 11b; 24a. 


INTRODUCTION. $235 


ed interpretation must be regarded merely as an attempt ‘‘to 
provide an established custom and law with a Biblical sup- 
port”. 

Remark. There are some legal traditions of an ancient date most- 
ly concerning the ritual law, for which the Rabbis were unable to find 
a biblical support or even a mere hint. They are termed pwnd nabn 
‘DY ‘‘traditional laws handed down from Moses on Sinai”. That this 
phrase is not to be taken literally, but often as merely intended to desig- 
nate a very old tradition the origin of which cannot be traced, is evid- 
ent from Mishna Eduyoth VIII, 7. Maimonides in the introduction to 
his Mishna Commentary enumerates the traditions mentioned in the 
Talmud by that appellation to the number of twenty three. This enu- 
meration, however has been found not to be quite correct, as the tradi- 
tions designated by that name actually amount to the number of fifty 
five. Compare Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel II, 227-2382. 


b. THE EARLIEST COLLECTION OF HERMENEUTIC RULES. 


§ 5. 


Hillel the Elder. who flourished abount a century before 
the destruction of the second temple, is mentioned as having 
been the first to lay down certain hermeneutic rules (mip), 
seven in number, for the purpose of expounding the written 
law and extending 1ts provisions. Some of these rules were 
probably already known before Hillel, though not generally 
applied; but it was his merit to have fixed them as standard 
rules of legal interpretation. The headings of his seven rules 
are : 


1. Dim rey the inference from minor and major. 
2. mw my, the analogy of expressions. ; 
3. INN DNDN SN p32, the generalization of one special 
provision. 
sh) Sahtablc cob Stedman hss pss, the generalization of two special 
provisions. 
FP syapy qo29 wyD9DN) 19999 NDS Erubin 4b; Succah 28a; Kidd, 


Qa. Compare also the phrase: xodoyn NMDCDN Np Berachoth 41b; 
Yoma 80b; B. Metzia 88b and elsewhere very often used. 


124 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


5. taps 555, the effect of general and particular terms. 

6. “MS pip S3.NBYD, the analogy made from another 
passage. 

7. se3po soma, the explanation derived from the 
context. 


These seven rules of Hillel having later been embodied in 
the system of R. Ishmael, their fuller contents and application 
will be explained in the exposition of the single rules of that sys- 
tem.? 


c. A NEW METHOD OF INTERPRETATION INTRODUCED 
BY NAHUM. 


§ 6. 

Besides the seven rules of Hillel which were generally 
adopted,some other peculiar methods of interpreting the Scrip- 
ture were introduced by succeeding teachers for the sake of 
making new deductions from the writtenlaw. Thus Wahum of 
Gimzo, a contemporary of R. Johanan ben Zaccai, vriginated a 
method which is termed pips) 35 the extension and limitation. 
According to this method certain particles and conjunctions 
employed in the Mosaic law were intended to indicate the ex- 
tension or limitation of its provisions, so as to include the ad- 
ditions of tradition, or exclude what tradition excludes, As 
extensions were regarded especially the words: QS ON D2 and 
52, and as limitations the words: 4y, yD and pr. 

This method is illustrated by the following examples: 

1) The word my which marks the direct objective case 
agrees in form with the preposition mS w/z. Hence this word 
in the passage Deut. X, 20: syn TON 179 FS is interpreted 
oopon adn misnd “It is to include the wise men”, who are 
to be revered along with God (Pesachim 22b.). 

2) The principle that ‘‘acts done through our agent are 
as if done by ourselves”, is derived from the passage Numbers 
XVIII, 28: ons oi ann ja ‘Thus ye also shall offer an 
"1 These seven rules of Hillel are quoted in Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. 


VII; Aboth of R. Nathan ch. XX XVII and in the introductory chapter 
of the Siphra. 


INTRODUCTION 125 


heave offering”, by interpreting: mown ms misn> 2 ‘this 
also is to include your agent; he may offer your heave offering in 
your place”. Kiddushin 41b. 

3) That the rigorous precepts of the Sabbath do not 
apply to cases where life is in danger (w53 mip’5), is derived 
from the limiting word 4 inthe passage Exod. XXXI, 13: 
Mawr ominay AS IN: “merely my Sabbaths you shall keep” 
by interpreting pon? uty this ‘‘merely” excludes such cases. 
Yoma 85b. 


d. DEVELOPMENT OF THIS METHOD BY R. AKIBA.- 


Ses 


This new method of R. Nahum of Gimzo was not general 
ly approved by his contemporaries. One of its opponents was 
R. Nehunia ben Hakana who insisted upon retaining only the 
rules of Hillel.! But in the following generation, the celebrat- 
ed Rk. Akiba resumed the method of his former teacher Nahum 
of Gimzo, and developed it into a system. The underlying 
principle of that system was that the language of the Zhora 
differs from human language. ‘The latter often uses more 
words, to express ideas, than necessary; superflous words being 
inserted either for the sake of grammatical form or for the sake 
of rhetorical flourish and emphasis. Not so the language in 
which the divine law was framed. Here not a word, not a 
syllable and not even a letter is superfluous, but all is ase 
and of vital importance to define the intention of alaw and to 
hint at deductions to be made therefrom. According to this 
principle the indication of an extension and limitation of the 
law is not confined to those few particles pointed out by 
Nahum of Gimzo, but every word or part thereof which is not 
absolutely indispensable to express the sense of the law is de- 
signed to enlarge or restrict the sphere of its provisions. 

Thus R. Akiba and the followers of his system found indi- 
cations for the intended extension of a law in the repetition of 


1 See Talm. Shebuoth 26a. 


126 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 


a word'; inthe absolute infinitive joined with the finite forms 
of a verb;” in the conjunction {x ‘and in the conjunctive 5 . In- 
dications for an intended limitation of the law are found by 
laying stress either ona demonstrative pronoun,® or on the 
definite article 7°, or on the pergonal prenoun added to a 
verb’, or on a pronominal suffix® or on any noun’ or verb!’° 
occurring in that law. 

The new hermeneutic rules which R. Akiba thus added to 
those of Hillel and Nahum offered entirely new ways and means 
to find a Scriptural basis for the oral laws, and to enrich its 
substance with many valuable deductions. 


e. R. ISHMAEL’S RULES. 


§ 8. 

The ingenious system of R. Akiba,though received with ad- 
miration by many of his contemporaries, had also its opponents. 
One of the most prominent among these was R. Ishmael b. 
Elisha. He claimed: oc 533 mw rabrhimirminhahr te cu MiYes warmer ae 


Law speaks in the ordinary language of Men”. Therefore, no ) 


special weight ought to be attached to its turns of speech and 
repetitions so customary in human language. He consequently 
rejected most of the deductions which R. Akiba based on a 


seemingly pleonastic word, superfluous syllable or letter, and ~ 


1 f, i, Pesachim 36a: FI NY NNy; Yebamoth 70a: y*~KN vx 
Sayn nad compare also Shebuoth 4b: oby9) o5y9) ; 


2 Sanhedrin 64b pian ni2n; B. Metzia 31 a.b. opwn awn, ndbw 
nbwn, anyn ary ete. 

* Sanhedrin 34b: nyanb nat 1; B. Kamma 53b: pdon nx miand i. 

‘Sanhedrin 51b: nyand nay na; Yebamoth 68b ; mr wett ya; 
compare also Kethuboth 108a: 5y3n NN nN maid ayn. 

® Horioth 9a: MINN PR Jaap at; Chulin 42a: AN ANT MN 
xd nins. 

° Pesachim 5a: (Hy) ny *S and pwxan wR xp Ino. 

7 Maccoth 2b: p01 xd) N17 DIN" $4; compare also Horioth 12b: 
sim S/n. 

® Kiddushin 17b: yan nw xdy pdwyd ayn; Sanhedrin 46a in mnt 
amis 851 

* Kiddushin 18a: yaaa xd) 1n2232;Sanhedrin 52a: pd DID vN. 

1° Gittin 20a: ppn xd) 3n>); Kiddushin 64a: pAyiy o $n pon by 
OID PN 


> vi 


INTRODUCTION. 127 


| admitted only such deductions which could be justified by the 


\spirit of the passage of law under consideration. As standard 
rules for interpretation he recognized only those laid down by 
Hillel which he however enlarged to thirteen by subdividing 
some of them, omitting one, and adding a new one of his own. 


The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are: 


i slehiny 2p identical with Hillel’s Rule I. 

Dae ee ase identical with Hillel’s Rule II. 

oy ISS pal contraction of Hillel’s Rules III and IV. 

4 maps 555 

o 5553 AD subdivision of Hillel’s Rule V. 

6 555; 011555 

7. 8. 9. 10 and 11 are modifications of Hillel’s Rule V. 

12 spon mada aati aysyo 355 127 with some addition 
identical with Hallel’s Rule VII. 


13 FAT ANT Oowndon oan {3y, this rule is not at all 
found among Hillel’s. 

Among those rules of R. Ishmael, the sixth rule of Hille] 
‘the analogy made from another passage” is omitted, but this 
omission is seeming only, since that rule was, under differnt 
names: wor (the analogy) and 1393 7 (as we find-analogy) 
included partly in the rule of yy 7933, partly in that of oy 133; 
as will be seen further on in the fuller exposition of these two 
rules. 


R. Ishmael’s thirteen rules were generally adopted as the 
authoritative rules of rabbinical interpretation without however 
supplanting the methods of R. Akiba which continued to be 
favored by many sf the Rabbis and were applied even by some 
of the immediate disciples of R. Ishmael.’ 


Remark. R. Eliezer, son of R. Jose the Galilean, again enlarged 
the hermeneutic rules to the number of thirty two. But as his rules 
mostly refer to the homiletical interpretation, they do not strictly be- 
long to our subject. The Talmud though incidentally praising the emi- 
nence of this teacher (Chulin 89), nowhere mentions his rules. But in 


*? Compare B. Kamma 84a: *w57 NYN' NP byw 439955; also Kid- 
dushin 43: mand ws xan Seyow 3 135. 


128 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 


the Agadic interpretation of the Amoraim,some of his rules are applied. 
A Baraitha of R, Eliezer containing his thirty two rules is not men- 
tioned in the Rabbinical writings before the tenth century. This Ba- 
raitha is embodied in the books: Sefer Kerithoth and Halichoth Olam 
of which we shall speak in the following paragraph. 


LITERATURE ON THE HERMENEUTIC RULES. 
§ 9, 


The thirteen rules of R. Ishmael are collected in the intro- 
ductory chapter of the Siphra. 

R. Abraham b. David of Posquteres (4"387), in the XII cen- 
tury, wrote some valuable annotations on that chapter in his 
commentary on the Siphra. 

Re. Solomon b. Isaac (9"Yy>), the celebrated commentator of 
the Talmud, in the XI century, occasionally explained, in his 
lucid way, the single rules where they are applied in the Talmu- 
dical discussions. * 

Of standard works treating of the hermeneutic rules we 
mention: 

mamas ‘Dp by &. Samson of Chinon, in the XIV century. 

ody mindn ’p by &. Jeshua b. Joseph Halevi, flourishing 
inthe XV century, in Spain. 

An abstract of the two last mentioned works is found in 
an appendix to Mid 13 ADDY in the usual Talmud editions. 

FAN MII 'D by Aaron b. Chayim, XVI century. This very 
valuable treatise forms the first part of the author’s greater 
work called JAAN jaqp Which is a commentary on the Siphra. 

myiow pap by #. Solomon 6. Abraham Algazi, XVII cen- 
tury. 


1 A separate treatise on the hermeneutic rules, ascribed to this 
commentator and published in Kobak’s ‘‘Ginze Nistaroth” 1 11 under 
the title of nnn by wn win seems to be spurious. Itis, at most, a 
compilation of his various incidental remarks on the single rules found 
in his commentary on the Talmud. 


INTRODUCTION. 129 


moon ndonn’p, by Jacob Chagiz XVII, century. 

Of modern works on our subject the following deserve to 
be mentioned: 

Halachische Exegese by H. S. Hirschfeld, Berlin, 1840. 

nee Sn by Mordechai Plongian, Wilna, 1849. This Heb- 
rew book treats exclusively of the rule of Gezera Shava. 

Palaestinische und alexandrinische Schriftforschung by Z. 
Frankel, Breslau, 1854, 


EXPOSITION OF R. ISHMAEL’S HERMENEUTIC RULES. 


CHAPTER I. 
THE INFERENCE OF KAL VE-CHOMER. 


The rule which occupies the first place in the hermeneutic 
system of Hillel as well as in that of R. Ishmael, is termed 
spin op. This rule is very frequently used in the Talmudic 
discussions. It has quite a logical foundation, being a kind 
of syllogism, an inference a fortiori. 


I. DEFINITION. 
§ 10. 


In the Talmudic terminology the word 9p (light in weight) 
means that which, from a legal point of aie is regarded as 
being less important, less significant, and 41m (heaviness) that 
which is comparatively of great weight and importance. By 
the term 337M) 2p then ismeant aninference from the less to the 
more nota and vice versa, from the more to the less im- 
portant. 


For the sake of convenience, we shall use the word *mznor 
instead of ney and major instead of =~in; but we must caution 
against contents the meaning of these words with that of 
the terms major and minor, commonly used in logic in regard 
to syllogisms. 

II. PRINCIPLE. 


3 Stil, 


The principle underlying the inference of =1\m 2p is, that 
the law is assumed to have the tendency to proportionate its 
effect to the importance of the cases referred to, so as to be more 
rigorous and restrictive in important, and more lenient and 
permissive in. comparatively unimportant matters. Hence, if a 
certain rigorous restriction of the law is found regarding a mat- 
ter of minor importance, we may infer that the same restriction 
is the more applicable to that which is of major importance, 


THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 131 


though that restriction be not expressly made in the law for this 
case. And on the other hand, if a certain allowance is 
made by the law regarding a thing of majorimportance, we may 
properly conclude that the same allowance is the more applicable 
to that which is of comparatively minor importance. 

Thus, for instance, May is in some respects regarded as 
being of more importance (719m) than w/’}) (a common holiday). 
If, therefore, a certain kind of work is permitted on my, we 
justly infer that such a work is the more permissible on wy’ 
and vce versa, if a certain work is forbidden on 1/8 it must all 
the more imperatively be forbidden on pay. Mishna Betza V. 2: 


nawawp mex ws wx 55 
Ill. BIBLICAL PROTOTYPE. 
§ 12, 


The inference, drawn in Scripture (Numbers xii. 14) on a 
certain occasion is regarded as a prototype of this manner of 
drawing indifferences which is employed in the Talmudic Halacha. 
Miriam had been punished with leprosy as a sign of the Lord’s 
disfavor, and when the question arose how long she ought to be 
shut out of the camp in consequence of that disfavor, the 
answer was; ‘‘If her father had but spit in her face, should she 
not be ashamed (shut up) seven days? Let her be shut out 
from the camp seven days.” Here an inference is made 
from minor to major, namely, from a human father’s to the 
Lord’s disfavor. 

Iv. ‘TALMUDIC TERMS, 


§ 13. 


Every 393m 2p contains two things, A and B, standing 
in certain relations to each other and having different degrees 


‘Modern jurisprudence admits also a certain argument which is 
quite analogous to the principle of Kal ve-chomer, as may be 
seen from the following maxim, quoted by Coke on Littleton, 260: 
“Quod in minori valet, valebit in majori; et quod in majori non 
valet nec valebit in minori.” ‘What avails in the less, will avail in 
the greater; and what will not availin the greater, will not avail 
in the less.” 


hay HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


of importance. Of these two things, A, which in Talmudic 
terminology is called 3~5~ (teaching) is expressly subject to a 
certain law or restriction, which by way of inference is to be 
transferred to B, termed 7195 (learning). 


An inference is termed j»t (a judgment); to make an infer- 
ence jit (to judge). The peculiar law found in the “spdp is 
called j153 (to be judged from), while the law finally transferred 
to the 3195 is termed }77m 7) Nan (the result of the inference). 

Thus, in the biblical inference mentioned above, the father’s 
disfavor is the 71951, the Zord’s disfavor is 35. The punish- 
ment in consequence of a father’s disfavor (nysy aban son 
n°) is the j173, and the final decision derived from this infer- 
ence (0%) yaw ON) 1s pan jd Nan. 

v. LOGICAL AND FORMAL ARRANGEMENT. 
§ 14. 


Logically, every 1} (like every syllogism) has three propo- 
sitions, of which two are the Premises and one the Conclusion. 

The first premise states, that two certain things, A and B, 
stand to each other in the relation of major and minor impor- 
tance. 

The second premise states that with one of these two things 
(A) a certain restrictive or permissive law is connected. 

The conclusion is that the same law is the more applicable 
to the other thing (B). | 


The first premise is termed p74 nonin the outset of the infer- 
ence, OF NTT NIP y, the most essential part of the inference ; 
while the final conclusion is called jt 41D the end of the 
inference. 

The formal arrangement of these three propositions differs, 
however, from this logical order, as a 1/’p is usually expressed 
by two compound propositions, one of which is the antecedent 
and the other the conseguent, as in case of an inference 
from minor to major: 


(ayn) TION (Op) sw OB nD 
(2Yny) TONY PT IN (CON) oy 93198 


THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 35 


‘¢ If A which in this or that respect is of minor impor- 
tance, iS subjcct to a certain severity of the law; ought not B, 
which is of major importance, be the more subject to the same 
severity?” Or, in case of an inference frome major to minor: 

(105) amie Gion) sewonds mp 
(MIDEW PTS) JDW ID ND (Op) cw ondD 

“Tf a certain allowance is made by the law in the case 
of A, which is of major importance ; ought not the same allow. 
ance be the more made in the case of B, which is of minor 
importance ?”’ 


VI. [ILLUSTRATIONS OF INFERENCES FROM MINOR TO MAJOR. 
Sabi, 


a. In Exodus xxii. 13, the law is laid down that ifa man 
borrow of his neighbor an animal or a thing, and the animal 
die or the object be destroyed, the borrower must restore the 
loss. But itis not expressly mentioned in this law whether the 
borrower was also responsible in cases when the borrowed 
animal or thing is stolen. he liability in this eventuality 
is then proved by way of an inference from the law regarding 
a (paid) depositary who, according to Exodus xxii. 9—11, 2s 
not bound to make restitution when the animal intrusted to 
his care died or became hurt, and yet zs held responsible in 
case the intrusted thing was stolen (o5y° iy 333° 2332 ON) 
The inference is made in the following way : 

ae) ae eae bm me hay Tan hy em eae nt Caan pn) ern hea ee a 
He J15 SOW PT IDS an MVsws sn ow 

“If the depositary, though free from responsibility for 
damage and death, is still bound to restore the thing stolen 
from him, ought not the borrower, who is responsible for da- 
mage anddeath, to be the more bound to restore the thing 
stolen from him?” In this inference the depositary 1s mznor, 
the borrower major. Baba Metzia 95a. 

6. By asimilar inference it is proved that a depositary 
has to make restitution in cases where the intrusted thing has 
become Jost, though the law only speaks of his responsibility 
for theft (Exodus xxii. 11): 


134 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


Dowd nN) manpy maa ne 
jw 92 8? Aywe> manpy nas 

“Tf he has to make restitution for the ¢Ae/¢, 
which is almost an accident (as the greatest vigilance may 
not always prevent it), how much the more is restitution to be 
made for ‘o-zng (the intrusted object), which is almost a 
trespass (since he was deficient in the necessary care and 
vigilance). Here 72933 is minor, 7738 major. Baba Metzia 94b. 


Vil. ILLUSTRATION OF AN INFERENCE FROM MAJOR TO MINOR. 
§ 16 
While the Sadducees took the law ‘‘Eye for eye” etc., 
(Exodus xxi. 24), literally as jus talionis, the rabbinical inter- 
pretation was, that a limb was not actually to be maimed for a 
limb, but that the harm done to the injured person was esti- 
mated and a pecuniary equivalent paid by the offender. Among 
other arguments in support of this interpretation one of the 
rabbis applied the inference from major to minor, referring to 
the law (Exodus xxi. 29—30), by which, under certain circum- 
stances, the proprietor of a beast which is notably dangerous 
and which has killed a person, is judged hable to the death 
penalty; but the capital punishment could be redeemed by 
money. Now, if the law expressly admits a pecuniary compen- 
sation in a case where the guilty person deserved capital pun- 
ishment, how much the more is a pecuniary compensation admis- 
sible in our case where it does not concern capital punishment : 
POD NON way RD on snIA wiyw ope. 7 
MOD NOS way? Xow sin PT MD way Now IND 
Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 24. 
XIII. RESTRICTIONS IN THE APPLICATION OF INFERENCES. 
Saale 
Conclusions made by an inference are restricted by three 
rules: 1-st, p73 MVNO PIN [DO N22 YT ‘Tt is sufficient that the 
result derived from an inference be equivalent to the law from 
which it isdrawn”; that is to say, the law transferred to B 
(the major), must never surnass in severity the original law in 
A (the minor), from which the inference was made. 


THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 135 


Thus, inthe inference made in the Scripture in regard to 
Miriam, we might have expected that the time of her exclusion 
from the camp should be more than seven days, since the Lord’s 
disfavor is of more consequence than a human father’s; never- 
theless, Scripture says, ‘‘Let her be shut out from the camp seven 
days,’ which is just as long as she would have felt humiliated if 
her father had treated her with contumely. On this passage 
the restrictive rule just mentioned is founded. An ample appli- 
cation of this rule is found in Mishna Baba Kamma II. 5. 

2d. Another restrictive rule is Pm jo Pwsy Ps. ‘The in- 
ference from minor to major isnot to be applied in the ezal 
law.” 

The reason for this rule lies in the possibility that the con- 
clusions drawn by inference might have been erroneous, so that 
the infliction of a penalty derived from such a conclusion would 
not be justified.’ 

An application of the rule j75 jp pwaiy psx is made in Tal- 
mud Maccoth 5b, to refute an objection to the rabbinical inter- 
pretation of the law, that the punishment of false witnesses 
(Deuteronomy xix. 19), is totake place only when the judg- 
ment against the falsely accused party has not yet been executed. 
The objection to this interpretation was raised by way of an 
inference from minor to major: 

Pein mp IN ...paam PS wm pay wa NP 


1Quite analogous to this rabbinical rule is that established in 
modern law, “that penal statutes must be construed strictly. They can 
not, therefore, be extended by their spirit or by equity to any other 
offenses than those clearly described and provided for.” (See Bouvier’s 
Law Dictionary, article Penal Statutes). 
2A ccording to Talmudic interpretation, however, this rule is derived 
from the Scripture, in which the law sometimes finds it necessary to 
expressly mention a case in which the punishment is to be inflicted, 
though it could have been easily found by a mere inference from an- 
other case. Thus, for instance, in regard to the law, Exodus xxi. 33, we 
read in Mechilta: wx mop *D /n pon aD nme| Nos °d ps wen nD DI 
pe an opow 52 eb anon ayn omen ox pa ow qx Nder oy 
ean pyay pare ood aias N72 732 In wo nwa yD MK 
In Talmud Maccoth 5 b, the same principle is proved in a similar 
way from Leviticus xx. 17. 


136 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


“Tf the witnesses are to be put to death, though their false tes- 
timony has not caused the death of the innocent, how much the 
more when it really had fatal consequences?” 

But this quite logical objection is removed by the axiom })s 
Pan jo pwsiy ‘No penalty can be inflicted which is based 
upon an inference.” j 

3d. A third restrictive rule in the application of inferences 
of np is laid down in Mishna Yadaim III. 2: 

ADI DMDID MDI AN MDT PIT NN 

or as the rule is expressed more concisely in Talmud Sabb. 132, 
and Nazir 57: no$onn WD Pst Px ‘‘No inferences must be made 
from traditional laws to establish a new law.””’ 


Ix. REFUTATION OF INFERENCES. 
§ 18. 


Not every n”’3p offered in the Talmudic discussions of the 
law is correct and valid. We sometimes find there very proble- 
matic and even sophistical inferences set forth merely as sup- 
positions or hypotheses; these are, however, finally refuted. A 
refutation of a mp 18 called NOD. 

Refutations may be made in two different ways: a. Either 
the correctness of the premise in the antecedent is disputed by 
showing that A (3959) which was supposed to be of minor 
importance (5p) is in some other respects really of major im- 
portance (719M); or 2. The correctness of the conclusion in the 
consequent is diputed by showing ‘that the peculiar law con- 
nected with A (4195) can not be transferred to B (4195) as 
itis not transferred to C, which in certain respects is like B. 

The first kind of refutation is called xooqs SIP YS NOTH a 
refutation Of the mostessential part of the infevence, and the sec- 
ond kind is termed N37 HIDN NIWD refutation of the final 
conclusion of the inference. The styles of expression in these two 


1R. Akiba, however, did not accept this restrictive rule, but at- 
tempted to make inferences even from traditionallaws to establish a 
new law. See Sabbath 132a. Compare also Talm. Jer. Kiddushin 1, 2: 
sb yo Tod mS mex NIpY 


THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 1387 


kinds of refutation are quite different. A refutation of the 
premise is usually expressed in the following way: 


(Jo1 [D2 TON) pow 19B! nD 
(3) j23 Ven (DSW) AD WSN 

“Why has A that particular severe provision of the law ? 
Because it is of major importance in this or that respect. But 
how will you apply it to B, which is not so important in the same 
respect?” 

The refutation of the final conclusion is usually expressed 
by the words, jaw mov 39D. ‘The case of C proves it;” viz. : 
that such a conclusion can not be admitted, since C isof equal 
importance with B, and still the restriction of A, which is 
intended to be transferred to B, is not applied to C. 


x. ILLUSTRATION OF THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF REFUTATION. 
§ 19. 


1. It is well known that the law, ‘‘thou shalt not seethe 
a kid in its mother’s milk,” is, according to Talmudic interpre- 
tation, a general prohibition against boiling any kind of meat 
in any kind of milk. After having demonstrated that aon wa 
(meat, which in contradiction to this law had been boiled with 
milk), is forbidden to be eaten (R583 WON), it is undertaken 
to prove that it is likewise forbidden to make any other use 
of it (ANIN3 VION). One ofthe rabbis tried to prove this by 
way of an inference from pony (the fruits of a tree during the 
first three years, which fruits were deemed forbidden to be used 
in any way mNima ven). The inference was made in the fol- 
lowing way : 
aNIND TNCN AVY MI Isp Now Moy np 
SNINS VON PT IDS TVSy 12 May 29n2 wa 
‘Tf those fruits, regarding which 
no law had been violated, are forbidden to be used in any 
way, ought not meat and milk, which, in violation of a law, 
have been boiled together, the more be forbidden to be used 
in any way?” 
The premise in this inference is that mony is of miner 


1388 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD 


importance (9p) compared with 423; but this premise is dis- 

puted by demonstrating that in certain respects it was, in fact, 

of major importance, since those fruits had at no time before 

been permitted to be used, while in regard to m’335 there had 

been a time (namely, before being boiled together), when the 

use of each of these components was allowed: 

(SNIFI ANON JID?) AMAA yw no ann sd jw mdayd mo 
snnn mpd mnw maa son 

Chullin 115b; Mechilta to Exodus xxi. 19. 

2. Refutation of the conclusion in the inference. An illus- 
tration of this kind of refutation is furnished in Mishna Pe- 
sachim vi. 1, 2. There the law is laid down that ifthe eve of 
mod happened to fall on a Sabbath, the sacrificial acts with the 
Paschal lamb, as the slaughtering, sprinkling, etc., were allowed, 
though such acts are otherwise regarded as labor (M2850), 
while certain preparatory acts (as carrying the lamb to the 
temple, ete.), though not regarded as real labor, but only as 
mizy (incompatible with a day of rest), are not allowed. This 
restriction is disputed by R. Eliezer, on the ground of the fol- 
lowing inference: 

nawn os on mosdp pw xinw mony os np 

(Naw AN INT No miaw owe jaw ds 

“If slaughtering, though a real labor, abrogates the Sab- 
bath, ought not things not regarded asreal labor the more °h- 
rogate the Sabbath?” 

But this logical conclusion is refuted by R. Joshua: 
may mw is IoNi moSop ow, is nny moi Den 

‘‘A common holiday proves that this conclusion is not ad- 
nissible, for on such aday some real labors (as cooking, baking, 
etc.), are permitted, while at the same time certain actions, 
which fall under the category of nia, are positively pro- 
hibited.” 

XI REINSTATEMENT OF A REFUTED INFERENCE. 
Spe AA GY 

When an inference has been refuted in one of the two ways 
just mentioned, the attempt is sometimes made to defend and 
retain it by removing the objection raised in the refutation. If 


THE INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 139 


the arguments proffered for this purpose are found to be correct, 
the original inference is reinstated; if not, the refutation is 
sustained and the inference finally rejected. 

Thus, for instance, in regard to R. Eliezer’s inference, which 
R. Joshua refuted by the objection mp3) ws, R. Eliezer, in 
turn, attempted to remove this objection by asking: A S45 AD 
mpd myn “What can that which is voluntary prove against 
a command?” That is to say, if minw actions are not allowed 
on 3, it must be remembered that they concern only 
voluntary or private affairs, while the prohibition of such 
actions in regard to the Paschal lamb concerns a religious duty 
which is expressly commanded. 

R. Joshua was silenced by this point of argumentation, and 
seemed to be willing to withdraw his objection to R. Elezer’s 
inference; but now R. Akiba appeared in the arena to defend 
R. Joshua’s objection by showing that a difference between miwn7 
and mix~ could not be admitted. He said mw mosin myn 
HWaovn AS Am ASS Maw owe sym msp ‘The sprinkling 
(by which an unclean person was declared to be again clean) 
may prove it, because this also is an act belonging to the cate- 
gory of miny, and at the same time concerns a command 
(since the performance of this act would make the person fit to 
bring his Paschal offering), and still itis not to be done on a 
Sabbath-day; therefore, you shou'd nc-t wonder that in our case 
those other acts (the carrying of the Paschallamb, ectc.), though 
concerning a my and only maw, are not to be done on a 
Sabbath day.” 

A repeated attempt of R. Eliezer to reinstate his infer- 
ence by disputing R. Akiba’s new objection, having been frus- 
trated by the latter’s counter-arguments, the inference was fi- 
nally rejected. 


XII. SOPHISTICAL INFERENCES. 
Sooke 


In conclusion, we wish to call attention to some sophistical 
inferences of \’5 mentioned in the Talinudic literature, which 
are refuted simply by an argument ad absurdum. 


140 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


One of these inferences is quoted in the Mishna Yadaim iv. 
7: ‘The Sadducees said, We have a strong argument against 
you Pharisees. You teach that one is responsible for a damage 
caused by his ox or ass, but not responsible for a damage 
caused by his slave or his bondwoman; is this not contrary to 
a simple rational inference?” ~ 
jjPtas Sn N OAT TSO OAS SN UPN MT Tw ON tS 
jas SSH OASY PT IPS Dis OA YN NY AST Aaay 

‘Tf I be responsible for my animals regarding which I have 
no religious obligation, how much more must I then be respon- 
sible for the damage caused by my servants, regarding whom I 
have a religious obligation?” 

The Pharisees promptly answered: ‘‘No! I am responsible 
for my animals, which have no free will and deliberation, but 
not for my slaves, who have knowledge and deliberation. If I 
offend them, they may go and deliberately set fire to my neigh- 
bor’s property. Should I then be bound to pay?” 

Another still more sophistical 4’ is mentioned in Mass. 
Derech Eretz Rabba, chapterI. A certain Jose b. Tadai, of 
Tiberias, tried, inthe presence of R. Gamaliel, to ridicule the 
application of inferences in ritual laws by the following 
paralogism: 

MIS VON US 73 WS UN OWS 7D 
M33 VON MANY PT IDS 73 VIDS TINY WN US 

‘Tf the marriage with one’s own daughter is prohibited, 
although the marriage with her mother is permitted, how 
much more unlawful must it be to marry another married 
woman’s daughter, since the marriage with her mother, a mar- 
ried woman, is positively prohibited?” 

The fallacy in this inference is that the conclusion contra- 
dicts the premise. The premise is that the marriage with one’s 
own wife is lawful, while according to the conclusion any mar- 
riage would be prohibited. But R. Gamaliel answered caus- 
tically: ‘‘Go, thou, and take care of the high-priest,in regard to 
whom it is written, Only a virgin fron among his people he shall 
marry; I shall then take care of all Israel.” That is to say, 
show me, in the first place, how, according to the inference, the 


THe INFERENCE FROM MINOR AND MAJOR. 141 


high-priest could enter a marriage, as Scripture expressly per- 
mits him to do, and I shall prove the same permission for all 
Israelites. 

According to another version, R. Gamaliel e::communicated 
the scoffing questioner, remarking: j19 735 “py? 437 PIT PN 
=ssm- ‘No inference can be admitted in which the ie a 
contradicts the law.” 

A masterpiece of sophistical inferences is recorded in San- 
hedrin 17. Referring to a tradition, according to which none 
could aspire for membership in the ancient Sanhedrin, without 
having given a proof of his dialectic ability by demonstrating, 
for instance, the cleanness of those eight reptiles which the law 
(Leviticus xi. 29, 30), expressly declares to be unclean, one of 
the Amoraim jokingly remarked: “If I had been living at the 
time when the Sanhedrin was still in existence, I might have 
aspired for membership by offering the foliowing inference: 

“ITD TNO WAIN oDy wns mi 
ITD SMW PTIPS ANDI 731) MDD IDS! yw 
Abe) Pent though killing men and beasts, and thus in- 
creasing ritual uncleanness, still is regarded a clean animal; 
ought not a reptile that does not kill and increase ninlowaniace 
be the more regarded clean?” 

This inference, though merely intended to display dialectic 
acumen, is earnestly refuted by the following argumentum ad 
absurdum: It, according to the first premise of this inference, 
a serpent ought to be unclean on account of its capability to 
kill a person, then any wooden instrument by which a person 
can be killed ought to be unclean. 

This inference and its refutation are of some intrest as an 
instance which shows clearly that many of the Talmudic dis- 
cussions on the law had no other purpose than to be a mental 
tournament, in which the rabbis and their disciples delighted 


to exercise ‘their intellectual powers and exhibit their skill and 
acuteness in the art of reasoning and debating. 


1The serpent is, of course, unclean in respect to food, but it is clean 
in as far as it does not belong to those eight reptiles concerning which 
the law ordained : ‘‘Whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, 
shall be unclean until the even.” 


CG EATEHUHG Ee lie 
THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 
RULES: 


INTRODUCTORY. 
S22: 


Analogy, in the ordinary sense of the word, denotes such 
resemblance between things, as enables us to assume of one 
what we know of the other. Although conclusions ‘drawn 
from analogy do not in general afford cerfainty, but only some 
degree of probability at best, much recourse is often taken to 
such conclusions in every branch of human knowledge, espe- 
cially when all other means of argumentation fail. 

The argument from analogy is also admitted as an aid in 
modern legal interpretation, either to determine an ambiguous 
expression in a law, or to decide a case not expressly provided 
for therein, or to supply a defect in one law by reference to the 
fuller contents of another law. 

The analogy between twolaws may be either vea/ or formal 
It is real when these laws are of the same nature and the cases 
treated of in them resemble each other in material points and 
in important relations. It is formal, when the resemblance 
consists merely in some external points and relations, as in 
the wording of the laws or in the connection in which they are 
set forth, Arguments from a real analogy existing between 
different laws are very often applied in the Rabbinical interpre- 
tation. Such an analogy is termed 33° my» of which we shall 
speak in the following chapter. But the Rabbis also admit the 
argument froma formal or external analogy. Whether also 
this kind of argumentation be in accordance with logical rea- 
soning, depends upon the nature of the conclusion which is 
intended to be drawn therefrom. If the external relations - 
upon which the argument proceeds, imply also an internal 
relation which has a bearing on the conclusion, it is logical 
and valid, otherwise it is not. There are especially two rules 


THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 143 


of Talmudical interpretation in which use is made of this kind 
of analogy. These are termed: 1. Gezera Shava; 2. Hakkesh. 


A. GEZERA SHAVA. 
I.—TERM, CLASSIFICATION AND FORMULA, 
§ 23. 


The term Gezera Shava (mw m3) means literally either 
a similar section (part) or a similar decision (decree). In the 
Talmudic phraseology it denotes an analogy of expressions, that 
is, an analogy based on identical or similar words occurring in 
two different passages of Scripture. The Gezera Shava is 
used: first, as an exegetical aid to determine the meaning of an 
ambiguous expression in a law; second, as an argument in.con- 
struing laws with reference to each other, so that certain provis- 
ions connected with one of them may be shown to be applicable 
also to the other. We have, then, two kinds of Gezera Shava, 
and in order to distinguish them clearly we propose to call the 
former the exege/ical and the latter the constructional Gezera 
Shava. The usual formula for both kinds of Gezera Shava is: 


wees Joie WONT. - + ee jSD NI 
INI AN... 26s. n> np 
HLGnepisesald a -gernien es There ds'said?.y.. 
PAS SULLGLC wep ne. ote ts so here. 


II.—THE EXEGETICAL GEZERA SHAVA. 
§ 23. 


The theory of the exegetical Gezera Shava is expressed in 
the Talmudical phrase sometimes used in connection with this 
kind of analogy: wnibin ji ond mip5> ‘the indefinite is tobe 
explained by the definite,” that is to say, if an expression in one 
passage of Scripture is used ambiguously, its meaning is to be 
ascertained from another passage, where the same expression 
occurs in a connection in which it is clearly defined. 

This quite rational theory is also adopted in modern scien- 
tific exegesis in reference to parallel passages, and is in some 


144 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


measure admitted even in the legal interpretation of statutes 
and documents.! 


Examples of exegetical Gezera Shava: 

1. In Levit. xvi. 29 the law relating to the Day of Atone- 
ment enjoins p>MwWpDI AN yn “Ye shall afflict your souls,” 
without defining the nature of this affliction. But the expres- 
sion 73y occurs in other passages in a connection where it evi- 
dently refers to the suffering of want and hunger,as for instance 
in the passage Ja yw Jpn Deut. vill. 3. (Compare also Psalm 
XXXV. 13 °WD3 oy °M3y). Hence the expression in our pas- 
sage is to be taken in the meaning which tradition has put on 
it, 2 ¢., asa term of fasting. 


D*NIW)DI AN YN IND IONS 

Sa yy qayt yon) as 

payr way pond me 

Payr Wy RI TONIw Ny |X 
Siphra to Levit. xvi., and Talmud Yoma, 74. 


2. Inthe law restricting the time of slavery, Exod. xxi. 
2, the expression \3y 7Z3y is somewhat ambiguous, as it might 
mean either a servantof a Hebrew (a heathen slave belonging 
to an Israelite) ora Hebrew servant (an Israelite who has been 
sold asa slave). That the expression is to be taken in the lat- 
ter sense (the word “ay being here used as an adjective and 


‘One of the chief rules in ascertaining the meaning of doubtful 
words is to try first to ascertain the meaning—from other passages of 
the same text in which the ambiguous word occurs, so used that it 
leaves no doubt—by parallels.” Francis Lieber, ‘Legal and Political 
Hermeneutics,” page 91.—The following rule of interpretation, which 
is quoted in ‘‘Broom’s Legal Maxims,” page 586, comes still nearer to 
the character of Talmudical Gezera Shava: ‘‘Where an act of Parlia- 
ment has received a judicial construction putting a certain meaning on 
its words, and the Legislature in a subsequent act in pari materia uses 
the same words, there is a presumption that the Legislature used those 
words intending to express the meaning which it knew had been put 
upon the words before, and unless there is something to rebut that pre- 
sumption the act should be so construed, even if the words were such 
that they might originally have been construed otherwise.” 


THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 145 


not as a noun) is proved by a reference to Deut. Xv. 12, where 
in a repetition of the same law the servant is called “5yn ns 
‘thy Hebrew brother.” 
ayn pms jn aN May Ty jSD INI 
ssto ainon Sxnw jss yon? mp 
sa72 sins Oxnw j23 jND AS 
Mechilta to Exodus XXI. 
IIIL—THE CONSTRUCTIONAL GEZERA SHAVA. 
§ 25 


While the exegetical analogy is limited to the purpose of 
ascertaining the meaning of an ambiguous word, the construc- 
tional Gezera Shava intends to supply an omission in one law 
by the more explicit provisions of another law. For this pur- 
pose use is made of an identical characteristic word occurring 
in both laws. By showing that this characteristic word has 
some bearing on certain provisions made in one case, itis ar- 
gued that the same provisions must apply also in the other 
case. 


IV.—ILLUSTRATIONS. 


§ 26. 


1. Hillel, the elder, who first mentioned this rule of inter- 
pretation, applied it in the following case: The eve of the Pe- 
sach festival once happened to be on a Sabbath, and the question 
was whether it should be permitted to sacrifice the Paschal 
lamb on such aday. Among other arguments to prove the 
permission, Hillel referred also to the rule of Gezera Shava. 
He argued: In the law concerning the dadly offering it is said 
(Num. Xxill. 2) that it was to be brought yryima ‘‘in its due 
season,” and also in the law regarding the Paschal lamb we 

1The ancient versions, as well as the modern commentaries on the 
Bible, fully coincide with the Rabbinical interpretation of this expres- 
sion. Strange enough, Saalschuetz, in his ‘‘Mosaisches Recht,” page 
"2, tries to defend the other interpretation so promptly refuted by the 
Rabbis, and claims that “ay t1y refers to a certain class of heathen 
slaves in the service of a Hebrew. Compare Mielziner’s “Die Verhaelt- 
nisse des Sklaven bei den alten Hebraern,” page 28. 


146 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


read: The children of Israel shall keep the Passover Wypirs 
‘in its due season.” (Num. ix. 2.) But concerning the daily 
offering the law expressly provides that it was to be brought 
also on the Sabbath day. (Num. xxviii. 10.) The expression 
Wwyi3 then means that the offering must take place at the ap- 
pointed time under all circumstances, even on a Sabbath; there- 
fore, the same expression }7y13 in regard to the Paschal 
lamb likewise enjoins that the offering take place at the time 
appoined, even ona Sabbath day. 


THOS TTYUS VWONII ADDI Wp WsS3 

DSU OS AAT WOND WANT typi AD 

HIV NS ONT NOD. MPSA wy aN 
Pesachim, page 66 a. 


2. Another example, taken from the civil law, may here 
be added to illustrate the application of the Gezera Shava in 
construing a law which appears to be defective. 


In Exod. Xxii. 6-8, and 9-12, are contained two different 
laws concerning the safe-keeping of the property of a fellow- 
man. The traditional interpretation correctly distinguishes 
between these two laws. The first treats of a gratuitous guar- 
dian, while the other refers to a paid depositary who has a 
greater responsibility than the former. Now, the first law 
seems to be somewhat defective. It provides that if the ob- 
jects intrusted have been stolen from the house of the guardian 
‘he shall be brought to the judges—that he has not put his 
hand to his neighbor’s goods,” but nothing is said of the way 
in which he was to prove this, neither is it said whether he was 
free from making restitution if he succeeded in proving this. 
The Rabbis supply this defect by means of a Gezera Shava. 
They refer to the second law in which (verse 10) the same 
phrase occurs, ‘that he has not put his hand to his neighbor's 
goods.” Here the phrase is introduced by the words, “an oath 
of the Lord shall be between them both,” and is followed by the 
words, ‘and shall not make restitution.” Hence, according to 
this analogy, the phrase inthe first case must also be supplied 


THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 147 


z.: He shall be brought before the judges Zo take an oath» that 
he did not act fraudulently, which oath frees him from making 
restitution. 


moyn? 3 mimow miosn mand 1 mim>w mess 
myiaw? JRO AS myaw yon} no 
Mechilta to Exod. xxii., and Baba Metzia 41b. 

The examples given above illustrate the process and cha- 
racter of most of the Gezeroth Shavoth which are quoted inthe 
Talmud in the name of the great authorities of the Mishnic per- 
iod. The external analogy (the parity of expressions) from 
which the argumentation proceeds, is there generally of such a 
nature as to imply also an internal or real analogy which jus- 
tifies the conclusion to be drawn from it. 

Usually the two words which form the basis for a Gezera 
Shava are exactly alike, but sometimes even such words are 
used for this purpose which, though different in expression, are 
identical in their meaning. Thus, for instance, a certain ana- 
logy is occasionally formed on the basis of the expressions Sw} 
jaan “the priest shall re¢wrn” (Levit. xiv. 39), and jFom 82) 
‘the priest shall come” (2dzd., 44), since the verb ‘‘to return” 
is almost identical with the verb “to come” (as the former 
means to come again.) 

MVS SAV AY STW IISA S31 jan sw 
Siphra to Levit xiv., and very often quoted in the Talmud. 


V.—THE EXORBITANT GEZERA SHAVA, 
§ 27 


There is a peculiar kind ofGezera Shava sometimes resort- 
ed to, especially by Amoraim, which is quite different from 
the rational character of the analogies generally used by the 
Tanaim. Its peculiarity consists in this, that the argument 
from a parity of expressions is also admitted in cases where 
the two laws or passages, compared with each other, have noth- 
ing in common except a single, often very insignificant word 


1The Septuagint already supplied the passage in this way by adding 
to ‘the shall appear before the judges” the words xai ometrai ‘and he 
shall swear.’ 


148 ; HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


which has not the least natural bearing on the conclusion to be 
drawn therefrom. 

It is obvious that arguments from such mere verbal ana- 
logies easily result in what is termed in Logic a fa/acy, or 
sophistical conclusion. It must, however, be stated that the 
Amoraim never used such purely verbal analogies for the 
purpose of deducing a new law from Scripture, but merely as 
an attempt to find a Scriptural support for an opinion expressed 
by one of the authorities in the Mishna.? 

This kind of Gezera Shava is externally characterized by 
being usually introduced by this peculiar formula """p7s ony 
or ==" p7303 ‘tbat is derived from,” followed by the two 
identical words on which the analogy in question is assumed to 
be based. 

VI. ILLUSTRATIONS OF EXORBITANT USES OF GEZERA SHAVA. 
§ 28. 

a. In Mishna Sanhedrin I. 1, it is stated that criminal 
cases involving corporal punishment (stripes) could be decided 
by a minor court of three judges, but according to the opinion 
of R. Ishmael, such cases required a higher criminal court of 
twenty-three judges. The reason for this divergence of opinion 
was, probably, that this Rabbi regarded the infliction of corpo- 
ral punishment as too serious a matter to be left to the deci- 
sion of a civil court of three; as a criminal case it ought, like 
a case of capital punishment, to be judged by the higher court 
of twenty-three. But the Gemara, commenting on this Mishna, 
wants to know the Scriptural ground on which R. Ishmael 
based his analogy, and in answer to this question the Babylo- 
nian Amora, R. Ashi, thinks that he can find such a basis in 
the word pw “the guilty” or criminal, which occurs as well in 
the law referring to corporal punishment (Deut. xxv. 2) as in 
that regarding the execution of capital punishment. (Num. 
Xxxv. 31.) 

FUDD YY pwa NOS 
Talmud Sanhedrin 10. 


‘Compare Z. Frankel’s ‘‘Palaestinishe und Alexandrinische Schrift 
forshung,” page 20. 


'THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. 149 


4. Mishna Kiddushin I. 1 lays down the law that one of 
the means to contract marriage was SDD, that is, the giving of 
a piece of money or its value to the woman, with the express in- 
tention of engaging her for this consideration as his wife. The 
Gemara asks for a Biblical basis of this law, and the following 
answer is given: The Law, in speaking of marriage, uses the 
expression MWS BN mpd “if a man ¢eke a wile” (Deut. xxii. 
13); but np? ‘to dake” also means “ta acguire” property, ! and 
is used elsewhere in connection with money given in considera- 
tion for the acquisition of property *39) np mown yon (Gen. 
XXlil. 13); hence also a wife is acquired by means of money. 


jmby retiree) ni nie ae 
Talmud Kiddushin 2a. 


As to illustrations of Gezeroth Shavoth of a still more de- 
cidedly sophistical character, we refer to the following two 
examples in which an argument from analogy is based, in one 
instance, on an identical pronoun (75) and in the other on an 
identical adverb (nw), occurring in two laws or passages of to- 
tally ditferent nature and contents. ’ 

F390 32) 75 nay nwsenvemsn 55 
mwxe mo n> 7237 
Talmud Chagiga, 4a. 


1In the Pentateuch, however, the word npb nowhere has the mean- 
ing of ‘‘to acquire or to buy;” it occurs in this meaning only a few 
times in some of the other books of the Bible (2 Sam. iv. 6; Prov. xxxi. 
16, and Nehem x. 32); but in the Talmudic idiom it is almost exclusi- 
vely used in this sense.—The formality of contracting marriage by 
means of a piece of money was probably of a late origin, and was per- 
haps influenced by a similar Roman custom—the nuptials by coemptio. 
The probability of such an influence gains some ground if we compare 
the expression of the Mishna 7N°33 TOW 70D DDT nwowa np AWE 
with the corresponding expression used by Gajus I., § 11U, in speaking 
of the Roman custom; ‘‘Feminae olim tribus modis in manum conve- 
niebant: usu, farreo, coemptione.” It is moreover evident that the 
civii law of the Mishna, though in doctrines and principles so widely 
different from the Roman law, adopted several legal formalities from 
the latter and modified them according to the leading Jewish principles. 

2A very extensive use of this kind of Gezera Shava was made 
especially in the Agada(the homiletical explanation of moral and 
historical passages of Scripture), where it was not restricted by any 
rules. There it gave rise to many of those most fanciful interpretations 
and legendary narratives quoted in the Midrash and Talmud. 


150 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


ANAS VOX not 7530 
MDM Mosyo ow ow NON 
Aboda Zara 29b. 

VII. RESTRICTIONS INTHE USE OF GEZERA SHAVA. 

§. 29. 

The exorbitancies which some teachers permitted. themselves 
to make use of in the application of the Gezera Shava, served 
only to demonstrate the weakness of the theory of basing ar- 
guments upon an analogy of expressions. It having been 
found that such arguments easily run into vague fallacies, this 
whole theory seems to have been slighted by many. That such 
must have been actually the case is evident from the repeated 
admonitions which several prominent teachers addressed to 
their contemporaries: ‘‘Do not look slightingly upon arguments | 
from the analogy of Gezera Shava, since very important in- 
junctions of the traditional law can derive their Scriptural au- 
thority in no other way than by means of such an analogy.” 

But as an arbitrary application of the analogy of Gezera 
Shava could easily lead to misuse, it was found necessary to 
subject it to some restrictions. This was done by the following 
rules : 

1. The identical expression occurring in two different laws 
must at least in one of them bemapiy ‘‘empty,” that is, seemingly 
superfluous, or pleonastic, and not already engaged for another 
deduction of the traditional interpretation, to enable it to be 
used for an analogy of Gezera Shava. Thus, for instance, in Deut. 
Xxlll. 38, the law provides that a dastard ‘‘shall not enter into 
the congregation ofthe Lord, even to the tenth generation.” In- 
mediately after this law follows another, with a similar provis- 
ion, in regard to an Ammonite or Moabite: ‘‘Zven to the tenth 
generation they shall not enter into the congregation of the 
Lord for ever.” The identical expression in both cases are the 
characteristic words, ‘‘even to the tenth generation.” But in 


the second case this expression seems to be somewhat superflu- 
ous, or ‘‘empty,” since the emphatic words ‘for ever’ which 


45) pya AdSp my avon bx ods Talmud Kherithoth. 54. This 
admonition is there repeated in the name of four different teachers. 


THE ANALOGY OF GEZERA SHAVA. Jol 
yd 


are added here exclude even the /a¢es¢ generations of an Am- 
monite or Moabite from the congregation. The expression is 
then assumed to have been used here for the purpose of inti- 
mating an analogy of Gezera Shava. As the phrase, ‘‘even to 
the tenth generation,” is here clearly defined to mean for ever 
or the latest generations (¢ex being a round number taken to 
signify nerfection and completeness), so the identical expres- 
sion in the former law must be likewise taken in this sense— 
a bastard and his descendants are for ever disqualified from 
entering the community of Israel.' 
iw mya ToT wep mpi 
DoW Ty ND WONT Spwy at a 
DIY TY JON? MONT wy WT AN 

Siphre to Deut., section 259; compare also Talmud Jeba- 
moth, 78b. An other example is found in Tal. Chagiga 9a. 

A Gezera Shava in this case is termed IMS 731 MID 
‘empty on one side,” and is regarded admissible, but may still 
be rejected for certain reasons. Only when the identical ex- 
pression is found to be superfluous in both laws under consi- 
deration, pIT¥ ‘Jw MID, is the analogy regarded as irrejec- 
table. But if no pleonasm is recognizable in either of the two 
passages of the law, no analogy can be formed between them 
because of an identical expression occuring in each of them. 
Baba Kama 25b; Jebamoth 70a; Nidda 22b; Sabbath 131a. * 


2. The second restrictive rule is less artificial and answers 
the purpose better than the former. It is this: yw’) }7 OTN PS 
wosypp (Pesachim 66; Nidda 19b) ‘‘No one is permitted to 
reason from a Gezera Shava of his own.” While the applica- 
tion of the logical inferences of Kal Vechomer could be left to 
the discretion of the teachers of the law, the use of the un- 


IThat is, according to Rabbinical interpretation, they are not per 
mitted tointermarry with Israelites. 

*The Galmud further makes many nice distinctions in regard to 
this A:519, which however, are too intricate and subtle to be treated 
here. Those who take an interest in the details of this subject will 


consult with advantage Dr. H. 8. Hirschfeld: Halachische Exegese 
p. 462—467, 


152 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 


certain conclusions from an analogy of expression had neces- 
sarily to be restrained. Such an analogy must be sustained by 
the authority of tradition in order to be valid and conclusive, 
or as a post-Talmudic addition to this rule explains: ‘‘One must 
have received the analogy from his teacher, and the teacher 
from his teachers, up to the time of the highest legislative 


authority.” 
This rule, however, hardly meant to say, as many interpreters 


understand it, that either the special application of a Gezera 
Shava in a certain case must have been handed down, or the 
identical expression on which the analogy is based must have 
been pointed out by tradition. If so, it is difficult to perceive 
how so many controversies could have been raised in the Tal- 
wud in which analogies of Gezera Shava are set forth and 
disputed, or withdrawn and replaced by others. 

The true meaning of that rule seems rather to be that no 
new laws are to be deduced from Scripture by means of a 
Gezera Shava, out that such analogies could be only ap- 
plied for the purpose of offering a biblical support to a law 
which already had the sanction of tradition. Such a support 
might be found in one way or another, and hence arose the 
difference of opinion in regard to some analogies.’ 


Aaya PSO CIO Si ah 


VIII. TERM AND THEORY. 
§ 30. 

There is another kind of analogy, somewhat similar to. 
Gezera Shava, which, though not expressly mentioned among 
the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael, was generally adopted and 
very frequently applied in the Talmudic interpretation of the 
law; itis termed Heckesh. 

The word wps7, derived from the verb wipn, to compare, 
means originally a comparison, an analogy, in which general 
sense it also occurs;? but in the Talmudic terminology it 
usually denotes a particular kind of analogy, based 

1Compare Frankel: ‘‘Ueber palaestinische und Alexandrinische 
Schriftforshung p, 16, Note6andp. 20. 

*For instance, Talmud Jerushalmi Pesachim vi. 1. 


THE ANALOGY oF HECKESH. 153 


on the close connection of two subjects in one and the same 
passage of the Law. 

The theory of this peculiar analogy is that where two 
subjects are connected in the law by a common predicate, the 
same provisions otherwise made in regard to one of them are 
under certain circumstances applicable also to the other. 

Within certain limits this theory is not inconsistent with 
logical reasoning, since the connection of two subjects by a 
common predicate indicates that they in some respects have a 
relation to each other. In modern rules of legal interpreta- 
tion also isa maxim: ‘Coupling. words together shows that 
they ought to be understood in the same sense.”: But in 
their endeavor to provide every traditional law witha Biblical 
support, the rabbis sometimes carried also this theory beyond 
its legitimate limits and beyond the natural scope of the 
written law. | 
} IX. ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Sees 

The following examples will illustrate the different modes 
in which the theory of Heckesh is applied: 

a. According to the traditional law, women are exempted 
from the performance ofall periodical rites and religious duties 
incumbent on male Israelites. In regard to prohzbitory com- 
mandments, however, no difference is made between man and 
woman. Her obligation in this respect is derived by the analo- 
gy of Heckesh from the words of Scripture (Numbers v. 6). 
‘When a man or woman shall commit any sin,” etc., in which 
passage women are placed in one category with men in regard 
to a trespass against the law. 

DINT NwDN 55D wy? D> TWN IN UNS 
mnay pway 555 wes? nes sina mun 
Kiddushin 35a. ~ 

6. Among other rules and regulations concerning civii 
and criminal courts, the traditional law provides that the ses- 
sions ofa court must be opened in day time only; and further, 


*Copulatio verborum indicat acceptionem in eodem sensu. Bacon, 
Max. Reg. 3; Broom, Max. 3d, Lond. edition, 523. 


154 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


that ddndness disables a man from acting as one of the judges. 
The reason for these two provisions is obviousenough. But their 
Biblical support is offered by R. Meir in the following more in- 
genious than natural deduction. He says: The Law, in speak- 
ing of the judicial functions of certain priestly courts, enjoins 
that ‘by their word shall every controversy and every injury 
be decided” ya3 S55 9 55 sD (Deuteronomy xxi. 5). 
‘‘Controversy” refers to civil litigations, and ‘‘injnry” refers to 
the plague of leprosy (which in Leviticus xiii. 3, is termed pa3 
and was to be investigated by the priest). Both kinds of cases 
being connected in this law, they must be analogous to each 
other also in regard to their investigation. As the dnd would 
not be the proper man, and w#ghz¢ not the proper time for the 
investigation of a case of leprosy (Leviticus xiii. 6), so ought 
day to be the proper time for the trial of any case of litigation, 

and the d4nd not be admitted to judge such a case. 

peyas) Da wn 

“D1 DS HS POI NOV OVD oy AD 
Sanhederin 34, b. 
e. The traditional permission to cut off the sheaf of the 
first fruits for the purpose of the wave offering on the 16th day 
of Nissan, even if that day happened to be on a Sabbath, is 
based by R. Ishmael on the following passage (Exodus xxxiv. 
21), miawn wspri wenn. ‘In the time of ploughing and reaping 
thou shalt rest on the seventh day.” Ploughing is under all 
circumstances an optional (private) act, since it is nowhere 
commanded to be done for a religious purpose. Hence, also 
the prohibition of reaping on a Sabbath day refers only to the 
optional reaping for private purposes, but not where it is to be 

done in fulfillment of a religious duty: 


iw VSP BS TW Bean Ae 
Ms SAY Ayr VSP S39 
Mishna Shebiith I. 4. Menachoth 72. 
_X. HECKESH FROM PREDICATES. 
§ 32. 
The analogy of Heckesh is also made from two predicates 


THE ANALOGY OF HECKESH. 155 


belonging to oue subject. In this case, the yerbs constituting 
the common predicate are treated as verbal nouns. Such a 
Heckesh is, for instance, applied to prove that a wife may be 
taken in matrimony by means of a written contract of marriage 
which is handed to her. The law (Deuteronomy XXiv. 2), in 
speaking of a case where a divorced woman contracts a second 
marriage, uses the words: AMA ANY ‘when she has departed 
out of his house she may éecome another man’s wife.” As the 
departing out of his house (divorce) is by means of a written 
document (bill of divorcement), so, also, the Jdecoming a wile 
may be effected by means of a document written for that pur- 
pose. 
mes.) mn wp 
TDW S I TT AS IWS mss) A 

Talmud Kiddushin 5. As to other examples compare B. 

Kamma, 7la,, and Chagiga, 40. _ 


XI. HECKESH IRREFUTABLE. 
§ 33, 


Arguments from Heckesh are, in general,regarded as being 
more conclusive than those from Gezera Shava, the latter 
admitting of a refutation, but not the former.’ But as 
Gezera Shava, so also Heckesh could be applied only for the 
purpose of supporting a traditional law. 


Iwo by paw px Menachoth 82b; Baba Kamma 106b. Con- 
cerning the prevalence of one or the other of these two kinds of 
analogy in cases where they seem to be in conflict with each 
other, compare the divergence of opinions in Gittin 41, and Zebachim 48. 


CHAPTER III. 


THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 
RULE Il, BINYAN AB, 


I THEORY AND TERM. 
§ 34. 


It is an established principle of modern interpretation of 
laws: ‘‘When the law is special, but its reason general, the law 
is to be understood generally’. This principle is also applied 
in the rabbinical legal interpretation, as may be seen from the 
following example: In Deut. xxiv, 6, the law provides ‘‘No 
man shall take the mill or the upper millstone as pledge: for 
he taketh a man’s life to pledge.” This law is special, prohib- 
iting certain specified utensils, the hand-mill and the mill-stones, 
to be taken as pledges. 

The reason, however, which the law expressly assigns to 
this prohibition is general; by taking away from the poor debtor 
these utensils, so essential for daily domestic use, you are 
depriving his family of the means of preparing their food. Hence 
the Rabbis feel justified in generalizing this law, so that ‘‘Hvery- 
thing which is used for preparing food is forbidden to be taken 
as pledge.’” In a similar way the special law: ‘Thou shalt 
not plow with an ox and an ass together” (Deut. xxii, 10) is 
generalized by the Rabbis so as to equally prohibit the yoking 
together of any two other animals of different Species and 
strength. Ox and ass are here mentioned especially as being 
those animals ordinarily employed in agriculture. And not 
only in plowing, but also for any other purpose it is prohibited 
to yoke such different animals together.* From the quite ra- 
tional principle just illustrated, developed the Rabbinical rule of 


1Quando lex specialis, ratio autem generalis, generaliter lex est 
intelligenda. | 

arm wal Tow wes dow ia pony at bo aos t2$a as on xd 
ayn. Mishna B. Metzia ix, 13. 

*See Siphre P. 131; compare also Mishna Khilayim villi, 2. 


T'HE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 157 


generalizing special laws. According to the theory ofthis rule it 
is not even necessary to investigate whether the reason of a 
certain law is general or not, but any special law found in the 
Mosaic legislation is assumed to be applicable to all similar or 
analogous cases. Only where Scripture, in some of those ways 
which are defined by the Rabbis, indicates that the law in ques- 
tion is provided exclusively for the particular case mentioned 
therein, it is not applicable to similar cases. But otherwise, 
the provisions of the law are to be taken in a comprehensive 
and general sense, and the particular case expressly mentioned 
is to be regarded only as an illustrative example for its ap- 
plication.’ 

This theory is termed Ainyan Ab (38 732), the construc- 
tion of a leading rule i. e. the Generalization of a special law.* 


ll. METHOD OF GENERALIZING A LAW. 
§ 35. 


In Generalizing a special law so as to make it applicable 
to other cases, the Rabbis apply the following method: 

They try to point out in the special case some character- 
istic peculiarities which taken together are the probable reason 
for the provision made by the law for this case. Any other case 
having the same peculiarities is regarded as an analogous case, 
subject to the same provision of the law. 

The formula ofthis method is usually: 

(132 NYS) ...99 HS ...w Ime (NOD 37) AD 


1A somewhat similar view is expressed by a modern law writer, 
the celebrated Frenchman Toullier in his Le Droit Civil Francais 
suivant Pordre du Code, liv 3. t. I. c. 1. “It is analogy which induces 
us, with reason, to suppose that, following the example of the Cre- 
ator of the Universe, the lawgiver has established general and u- 
niform laws, which itis unnecessary to repeat in all analogous cases.”’ 

2In the application of this theory sometimes the phrase is used: 
53N 73 7 ‘this (special case) establishes the general rule or law”, f. 
ex. Sanhederin 30a; B. Kamma 7%b. Sota 2b. In this phrase, the word 
4X meaning father, chief, ruler is taken in the sense of principal or 
general rule (compare the terms nixby MIN: Ppt nas). Hence 38 793 
to build or construct a general rule, and 3x }.32 the construction of a 
general rule, the generalization of a special law. 


158 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


‘‘As A (the case mentioned in the law) being characterized 
by (that and that certain peculiarity) 1s subject here to a cer- 
tain provision, so any case similar to it (by having the same 
pecularities), is subject to the same provision. 

Where it is to be shown why the generalized law does not 
apply to a certain not quite analogous case, the formula is: 

PAsrserre) ihe aascriee ean) ins 

‘As A (having those certain peculiarities) is here subject 
to that provision, so any other case (similar to it by having 
the same peculiarities). The case of B however is excepted 
from that provision, because of its not having the same 
peculiarities.” 

ILLUSTRATIONS. 
Se Sade 


a. In Leviticus chapter xi and Deut. chap. xiv, the law 
treats of clean and unclean animal food. Concerning the quad 
rupeds, fishes and flying insects, general rules are given 
pointing out certain criteria by which to distinguish between 
the clean and the unclean. For the distinction between clean and 
unclean fowls, however, no general rule is given, but there is 
merely a list of nineteen or twenty specified birds which 
are unclean. To have a general rule also for this kind 
of animals was the more necessary as many of the spe- 
cified fowls can not easily be identified. The Rabbis therefore 
tried to find such a rule by generalizing the eagle which 
stands at the head of the specified list of unclean fowls. The 
eagle, they say, has four peculiarities: 1. it has not a ‘‘pro- 
longed toe”; 2. it has no crop; 38. the inner coat of its giz- 
zard cannot easily be peeled off from the fleshy part: 4, it 
“strikes” with its claws the prey in eating it. Hence any 
fowl resembling it in these peculiarities, is to be regarded as 
unclean.’ 

6. In Deut. ch xix, the law contains some particulars 
supplementary to a former law concerning the cities of refuge 


Sosy pan abpo aap pry pan am paseo pre inn ows ap? 
Talmud Chullin 6la. Nod 2 NYYD DD AN NOV 


THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 159 


which were designed to serve partly as a protection, partly 
as a punishment and atonement for him who unintentionally 
had committed a homicide. In this connection the special 
provision is made, that when a man goes zzfo a forest with his 
neighbor to hew wood, and the iron of the axe slips out from 
the handle and accidentally kills the neighbor, the slayer shall 
flee into one of those cities. 

This special provision is, of course, generalized by the Rab- 
bis, so as to be applicable to analogous cases, e. g. if one in 
breaking down a wall kills a man accidentally by one of its 
falling stones. If, however, such an accident happened in 
private premises, where the man who was killed had no 
right to enter, he who unintentionally caused his death is en- 
tirely acquitted, without having to flee to the city of refuge; 
for ‘‘as the forest mentioned in the law is a public place which 
the slayer and the slain man equally had a right to enter, so 
that law applies only to accidents occurring on places which 
both of them were permitted to enter, but not in private 
premises, where the man who was killed was neither permitted 
nor expected to be.’ 


Remark. Where it is not intended to raise a special provision to a 
general law applicable to all similar cases, but merely to draw from 
it an analogy for one single similar case, there the method is termed 
11D 11D (abbrev. 19''p), from the phrase by which such an analogy is 
usually introduced: . . . \yp AY "as we find concerning... so here”; 
e. g. Yebamoth 7b: nN nwND dD Nedarim 4b: p79 y’'p. 


Incorrectly the 19') is sometimes termed 3x })3, asin Menachoth 
76a; 1/93 "NAND N32; see Rashi ‘s commentary on that passage. 


III. GENERALIZATION OF TWO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
© By 


In the instances of Binyan Ab mentioned above, the 
general law is drawn merely from one special provision. Such 
generalization is qualified as IAN SIMD IN pia ‘a general 
law drawn from one passage (or provision).” But sometimes 
it 1s formed by a combination of two special provisions found 
either in one and the same passage or in two different passages 
of Scripture. In this case it is termed p’DIMD UbywHD ND “a 


' Mishna Maccoth II, 8. qx ows doad prady prad men cn an 
p2> Omen paw man Syn ayn xy ows p2o%5 pds pray my bs 


160 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 


general rule drawn from two provisions” It makes no es- 
sential difference whether the two provisions are found in the 
same or in different passages, as the same method is applied 
in either case. 


The method of generalizing two special provisions, so as 
to make of them one general law, is indicated by the formula 
always used for this purpose. It is: 


ay nD mtn Som (aD nn? an 89 
1S TWA IT 


‘‘Behold, this case ig not like the other, and the other not 
like this; the common peculiarity is....”” That is to say, first a dif- 
ference between the two special provisions is stated, and then 
again those points are set forth which are common to both 
of them, and which form their characteristic peculiarity. Any 
other case having the same peculiarity is then subject to the 
same law. 


Remark. The reason why a ditference of the two special provisions 
has first to be demonstrated before generalizing them, is explained in 
the following way: 

It isa Talmudic rule of interpretation that INND DO N3A D DIND sw 
mon px ‘wherever two provisions of the law are found in Scripture 
which are so_ identical that one of them is seemingly superfluous, as 
it might as well have been derived from the other by way of an ana- 
logy, then no further deduction from either of them can be admitted” 
(Kiddushin 24a and elsewhere). In making a Binyan Ab by a combina- 
tion of two special provsions it is therefore necessary first to show that 
they are not so identical as to be regarded as 4M +5 D°X3F D'DIND 3w,but 
that they really dodiffer in some points. 


1 This definition is according to the opinion of R. Abraham b. 
David (Rabed) in his exposition of the hermeneutic rules. Some com- 
mentators, however, call the generalization of one special provision of 
a law: 1¥9 19; the generalization of two provisions if found in one 
passage: INN 3n5dD x“3, and if found in two different passages of 
Scripture: D3\NI wD XI. 


THE GENERALIZATION OF SPECIAL LAWS. 161 


ILLUSTRATION OF GENERALIZING TWO SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
§ See 


In Exodus XXI, 26 and 217, the law provides, that ‘‘if a 
man smite the eye of his Servant and destroy it, he shall let him 
go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his servant’s 
tooth, he Shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.” 

Here two provisions are made, one concerning the eye and 
one concerning the tooth of the servant. Though different in 
their nature, eye and tooth have that in common that they are 
essential parts of the human body and the loss of them cannot 
be restored. Hence the Rabbis draw from these two provisions 
the general law that the mutilation of any member of the ser. 
vant’s body in consequence of brutal treatment on the part ofthe 
master, causes the immediate manumission of that slave.’ 


IV. GENERALIZING SEVERAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 
§ 39. 


} There are some instances where a Binyan Ad is formed by 

a combination of three or even four different special provisions. 
The method of operation in such cases is just the same asin the 
case of generalizing two provisions. 

An example of a combination of four different provisions 
for the purpose of forming one general rule is furnished in the 
first Mishna of Baba Kamma. ‘There, reference is made to 
four principal damages provided for in the law: 1) the damage 
caused by a goring beast (Exod. XXI, 28. 35. 36.); 2) the dam- 
age caused by an uncovered ct (Exod. XXI, 33. 34.) 8) the 
damage caused by depasturing foreign fields (Exod. xxii. 4) and 
4) damage caused by unguarded fre (ibid. verse 5.). 

Of these four provisions the general law is formed that a 
man is responsible and has to make restitution for any damage 


pay jay mw sya ywa ns py oan eds py now a Nd? 
Tyind pois) pry or as war 5a And poi paw oa we 
pain ya poy xy 
Mechilta Mishpatim P. ix; cf. also Talmud Kidd. 24a, 


162 FHLERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


caused by his neglect to guard that property which is under 
his care and liable to do damage.’ 


V. RECAPITULATION. 
§ 40. 


Briefly recapitulating this whole chapter on Generaliza 
tion, we shall find that according to the Talmudical view every 
provision of the Mosaic law is, as far as possible, to be taken 
as a general law, applicable to all analogous cases. A plain 
application ofa special provision to one analogous case is termed 
soyp mp, The generalization of special provisions, so as to 
make them applicable to all analogous cases is termed 3S p33 
the construction of a general rule. If such a general rule is 
derived merely from one special provision, it is termed 3s }532 
sms sinde. A general rule formed by a combination of two 
(or more) special provisions which, though different, have some 
characteristic points in common, is termed p/31AD wD IN 132 
These common characteristics are termed 7iwwnr 43M. 








wyan ar xd means ayoo sn sSy ryan saa awn xd? 
aan mas pind 35 psaqw an arsdy own m1 paw wen na ann a 
oy inown prs jaatw yale awn syn pnd tS a3 paw 
Examples of Binyan Ab formed of three provisions are found in 
Sanhedrin 66a; Maccoth 4b; Chullin 65b. 


CHAPTER IV. 
THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 


INTRODUCTORY. 
§ 41. 


In order to understand the different hermeneutic rules un- 
der this heading, it is necessary to have a clear conception of 
the meaning of the two talmudical terms wp and $55. 

555 means the Geverad, that which comprehends a class of 
objects; that which is applicable to a number of things agree- 
ing in a certain point in common. 

map means the Particular or the Special, that which sin- 
gles out an individual from among a number or class. 

Hence, any general term or any noun with the adjective 
S> ‘all’ “whatsoever”, is regarded as 555; while any term de- 
noting only a single object is taken as trp. 

The law usually speaks either in general or in particular 
terms. as: ‘‘He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be 
put todeath” (Ex. XXI,12); “Thou shalt not eat axzy abominable 
thing” (Deut. XIV, 3). Inthese two cases the terms are gener. 
al. But inthe law: ‘‘Thou shalt not seethe the 27d in its mother’s 
milk (Ex. XXIII, 19), the terms are particular.: 


It is obvious that where the law speaks in general terms 
it intends to refer to everything included in those terms. 
Where, however, it uses particular terms, the whole tenor of 
the law will decide whether it refers exclusively to the single 
objects mentioned and enumerated or also to others of a simi- 
lar nature. 

But it sometimes occurs that the law uses both kinds of 
terms together, so that either 1) the general is succceded by 


1The terms bb5 and 75 are applied by the Rabbis even to verbs. A 
verb denoting an indefinite act, as to do, totake, is regarded as: = 5, 
while a verb denoting a special kind of act, as tobuke, isa pnb; e. &. 
Kiddushin 2!b. M$>5-nnpd); Menachoth 55b: prD-maNN x, 5355 nwyn n5. 


164 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


particulars, pb 555, or 2) the particulars are ‘succeeded by a 
general, 6555 7p, or 3) one general term preceding and another 
succeeding the particulars, 5553 pip; 555. In each of these three 
cases the contents of either the general or that of the particu- 
lars are modified in some way. These modifications are defined 
by the following three rules. 


RULE IV. GENERAL AND PARTICULAR. 
§ 42, 


JONpaw md Nos 5552 ps wp 555 


In the case of General and Particular, the general includes 
nothing but the purticular. 


That is, when a general term is followed by an enumer- 
ation of particulars, the law is assumed to refer exclusively to 
the enumerated particulars. The particulars are then not re- 
garded as a mere illustrating example of the preceding general, 
but an indication that the contents of the latter are restricted 
solely to that of the particulars.: 


The following examples will illustrate the application of 
this rule: . 


a. In Levit I, 2. The law defines the offerings to be 
‘brought on the altar by the following words: ‘‘you shall bring 
your offering of the dJeas¢ (mMAnsN jp), of the zerd or of the 
flock.” The general term is here ‘“‘the beast (M2) which 
otherwise includes any kind of quadrupeds, both wild and tame 
(cf. Deut. XIV, 4. 5); but thespecial terms‘‘kerd and flock” limit 
the offering to these domesticated animals. The law is then to be 
construed in the following way: of the beast, viz. only of the herd 
and of the flock you shall bring your offering.’ 


* Somewhat analogous to this Rabbinical rule of interpretation is 
the following rule of construction of modern laws: ‘‘Where a genera] 
enactment is followed by a special enactment on the same subject, the 
latter enactment overrides and controls the earlier one” . See Broom’s 
Legal Maxims p. 650. 


2am Ndi 75 one INYI IPI. Tal. Zebachim 3fa. 


THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 165 


b. In Deut. XXII, 11 the law reads: ‘Thou shalt not 
wear a mingled stuff (t3Hpw), wool and linen together’. Here 
the general term TDyw, meaning a mixture of different sorts, 
is followed by the particulars ‘‘wool and linen together;” hence 
the Rabbis regard the prohibition of wearing a garment of ming- 
led stuff to be restricted to a mixture of wool and linen.} 

c. In Levit. XVIII,6 sq. the law on prohibited marriages 
begins with the general terms: ‘‘None of you shall approach 
to any that 1s near ofkin to him—”. According to this general 
interdiction the intermarriage with any degree of relationship 
would be prohibited. But as the general is followed by a spe- 
cification of prohibited degrees, the interdiction is to be re- 
stricted to these specified degrees.’ 

RuLE V. PARTICULARS AND GENERAL. 


§ 43, 
20m jpster wren Sy soy 545m mwys 5523 wap 


In the case of Partieulars and General, the general term 
adds to the contents of the particulars, and we include everything (be- 
longing to this general). 


That is to say, where particular terms are followed by a 
general term, it is assumed that the law refers to anything in- 
cluded in the general,* the particulars being regarded merely 
as illustrative examples of that general. 





1 See Mishna Khilayim X, 1, and the commentary of Obadiah 
Bertinoro, 
* Siphra in loco: 392-4) nwa aNw 5. 5x wx wre 
DIB— A JON my Pax nny 
prpay ay xbx 5593 psy pray 555 
It is true, the rabbinical law adds some extensions to the biblical list 
of prohibited degrees, but these extensions are not regarded as biblical, 
but as ny3w ‘secondary prohibitions’ made by the authority of the 
Sopherim. See Mielziner ‘The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce’, 
Dewol: 
* In a somewhat similar case, the modern rules of construction 
take just the opposite view, as may be seen from the following quota- 
tion in Broom’s Legal Maxims p. 650: ‘It is said to be a good rule of 


166 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


This rule is applied inthe following law in Exodus XXII,9: 

‘Tf a man delivereth to his neighbor an ass, or an ox,or a 
sheep, or any beast to keep, and it die, etc.” 

Here the enumerated particular terms ass, ox, sheep are 
followed by the general term ‘‘azy beast”. Hence this law re- 
fers to any kind of animal which is delivered to be guarded.’ 


RULE VI. GENERAL, PARTICULAR AND GENERAL. 
§ 44, 


A case of one general preceding and another following the 
particular can, in some respects, be regarded as an combina- 
tion of the two former cases, namely of General and Particular 
and of Particular and General, and the rule for this combina- 
tion is, consequently, a kind of amalgamation of the two rules 
given above concerning these two cases. While in the case of 
General and Particular (Rule IV) the general includes nothing 
but the strict contents of the particular, and in the case of Par- 
ticular and General (Rule V) the contents of the particular are 
extended to tbe whole comprehension of the general, it is held 
that a particular between two general terms is to be extended 
only as far as to include that which is similar to the contents of 
this particular, or as the rule is expressed in the talmudic phra- 
seology: 


orpT py sos ptoams ts 5527 erp 955 


construction that‘‘where anAct of Parliament begins with words which 
describe things or persons of an inferior degree and concludes with 
general words, the general words shall not be extended to any thing 
or person of a higher degree”, that is to say, where a particular class 
[of persons or things] is spoken of, and general words follow, the 
class first mentioned is to be taken as the most comprehensive, and the 
general words treated as referring to matters ejusdem generis with 
such class, the effect of general words when they follow particular 
words being thus restricted’. 


1 Mechilta on this passage: 
ny ix won ix aw xoecd ps 
mona Soy S/n 2? psp npn 55 any 
15552 5am pian Sy Eoinw 55am Say 


THE GENERAL AND THE PARTICULAR. 161 


In a case of General, Particular and General, do tnclude only 
that which resembles the particular. 

An example illustrating the application of this rule is fur- 
nished in Ex. XXII, 8, where the law is laid down that in all 
cases when a person has been found guilty of having embezzl- 
ed property, that person shall pay the double amount of the em- 
bezzlement. This law is introduced by the words: ‘‘For any mat- 
ter of trespass (General), for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment 
(Particulars), for anything lost (General)... he shall pay double 
to his neighbor.” 

Applying the rule of General, Particular and General, the 
Rabbinical interpretation of this law is to the etfect that the 
restitution of the fwofold value is to be made only for such em 
bezzled property which resembles the particular (the specified 
objects: ox, ass, sheep, raiment) in this that it 1s movad/e pro- 
perty, and that it is an object of zvtrinsic value. Hence the fine 
of double payment for the embezzled property does not apply 
where it concerns rea/ estate which is not movable, and neither 
where it concerns 47//s or notes which have no intrinsic but 
only a representative value.’ 

Remark 1. In regard to the limitation of ‘that which res- 
embles the particulars” (wrDr pps), the Talmud expresses two 
Opinions which differ from each other slightly. 

According to one opinion it is assumed that in a connection 
of General, Particular and General SPIT NDP x555 ‘the first 
general is prevailing and deciding,” so that such a connection 
is to betreated mainly in accordance with the rule for isi 55D 
viz. that the general comprises nothing but the strict contents 
of the particular. These contents are, however, in our case 
modified by the succeeding general, so that it now comprises 


1 Baba Kamma 62 b: bb5 —ywe rat 55 by 
pip — nnby dn aw Sy syn Sy ew oy 
3) IN — ATK 55 by 
mop ie1) Sodyon 134, wap pan AD 
noo apn Sy5uonn rat 55 AS 
mondo iNew Myprp my 
moo yo ps poodpnw »b“yxe nip INy? 
Other examples are furnished in Nazir 35 b; Shebuoth 4 b; 43 a. 


168 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD, 


anything which resembles the particular, at least, in three 
points (pty mw wa). 

But the other opinion assumes that in a connection of Ge- 
neral, Particular and General SPIT SANS 555 ‘the last gener- 
al is prevailing and deciding”. Hence, such a connection is to 
be treated rather in accordance with the rule for 555; x5, so 
that the contents of the particular are extended to everything 
comprised in the general. This extension is, however, in our 
case modified by the first general in as far as it excludes that 
which resembles the particular only in one point (7mX 5), 
while anything resembling itin more than one point (sw2 
773) is included. See Talm. Erubin 28a; compare also Rashi 
on Chullin 65b sub voce 55, 

Remark 2. Two general terms either preceded or followed by a 
particular are, according to some authorithies, also treated as a case 
of General, Particular and General : 

mtd At yD 297 Dd] Ww Nv ANNw Drpn 55 


bday 07815592 pm ya pra Syn 
Chullin 66 b; B. Kamma 64 b. 

Remark 3. The rule of General and Particular applies only when 
both are found in one and the same passage of the law, but not 
when in different passages: 

pres 5592 prwat xd am ar ppm pray S45 
B. Kamma 85 a; Menachoth 55 b. 


CHAPTER V. 
MODIFICATIONS OF THE RULES OF GENERAL 
AND PARTICULAR. 


The Rules VII-XI contain five different modifications of 
the preceding rules concerning the General and Particular. 
First MODIFICATION. RULE VII. 
$45 
9925 Jas sinw wip wad pay sinw 955 

Lhere ts a general that requires the Particular, and a Parlicu- 
lar that requires the General. 

That is to say, the preceding rules of General and Particu- 
lar do not apply to cases where either the general needs the 
supplement of the particular, or where the particular necessarl- 
ly requires the supplement of the general in order to express 
a full and clear meaning. For, an ambiguous general term 
cannot be treated as a general; neither can an indefinite special 
term be regarded as a particular. 

Thus, in Leviticus XVII,13 the law enjoins that he who 
taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, shall 
pour out the blood thereof =Dys 3npai ‘and cover it with dust’. 

In this passage the word \7pD) might have been taken 
as a general expression, since there are various ways of cover- 
ing a thing; "bys again is a particular term, and according to 
the rule of Klal u-Phrat (Rule IV) the interpretation of this 
law would be, that the blood must be covered with dust and 
with nothing else. 

But the general expression mp5 is ambiguous, as it admits 
of different meanings; it means as well /o cover (i. e. to overlay, 
to envelop), as also to Azde (to conceal, to withdraw from the 
sight). Without the addition of "bya we might suppose that 
the law only intended to enjoin that such blood pe put out of 
sight or concealed in a closed vessel. Hence the expression 


170 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


WD) is ‘‘a General that requires the Particular”, to express 
that the meaning is to overlay it with something, 

Consequently the rule of K’lal u-Phrat cannot be applied 
here, and the term "Dy= is not necessarily to be taken in its 
strictest sense, but may be extended so as to include anything 
resembling the dust. 

The same passage can also serve to illustrate the second 
part of our rule. The specialterm -py2 without the general 
expression }703) would have been quite meaningless, as no 
verb would be there indicating what to do with the dust. 
Hence it is ‘‘a Particular that requires the supplement of the 
General”. Another, somewhat intricate, example in Talmud 
Bechoroth 19a. 


SECOND MODIFICATION. RULE VIII. 
§ 46. 
102? 559m jo eum 55D mnw at 55 
83° 15D 5595 Sy 3055 Noe ee iosy Sy 70dd.N5 
When a single case, though alveady included in a general law, 
ts expressly mentioned, then the provision connected with tt, applies 
to all other cases included in that general law. 


This rule is illustrated by the two following cases: 
a. The practice of witchcraft was according to the gener. 


allaw in Ex. XXII, 17 (monn yb mpwon) a capital crime. 
The nature of the capital punishment is, however, not defined 
in this general law. But in regard to a certain kind of witch- 
craft, namely »33p5) DIN (having a familiar spirit and being a 
wizard) the law specifies the punishment as that of stoning 
(Lev. XX, 27). Hence this punishment applies to the practice 
of any kind of witchcraft’, 


‘Tal. Chullin 88b: pnp apy .555 InDD) RDN 
2x5 NINN TTD PN DY 

pind qryn 545 man pwn 

9751 5553 mI PIT PN) 

"Talm. Sanhederin 67): yo oewoo d5$53 sys oe 
35 aby ome wpa 2 eye andy 

DPI Awa AX Ad pA oN IN AD 


MODIFICATIONS. 171 


b. Deut. XXII 1-3, the law treats of the duty to restore 
found property to its owner. After having enjoined this duty 
concerning animals found going astray, it is added: ‘‘And so 
shalt thou do with his gavmen?¢; and so shalt thou do with every 
lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast 
found...”In interpreting this law the Rabbis say:Why is garment 
expressly mentioned, though contained in the general term of 
“every lost thing’? It isto indicate of what nature the found 
things must be concerning which it is your duty to advertise 
in order to restore them to their owner. Every garment had 
certainly an owner and, besides, it has some marks by which 
he could identify it. So the duty of advertising found things 
refers only to such property which obviously had an owner who 
will reclaim it and which has certain marks by which he might 
be able to identify it.’ 

THIRD MODIFICATION. RULE IX. 
§ AT. 
syd Naw Ins Iw pywd sey 59a menw iat OD 
oni 891 Opn? NS 

Wherever a single case, though already included in a general 
law, is expressly mentioned with a provision similar to the general, 
such a case ts mentioned for the purpose of alleviating, but not 
of aggravating. 

An example is furnished in Ex. XX XV,3: ‘‘you shall kindle 
no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day”. 
Now kindling fire being regarded as a labor, is included in the 
general prohibition of doing any labor on the Sabbath day. 
Since here expressly mentioned, it is for the purpose of alle- 
viating this special case by exempting it from the rigor of the 
general law in regard to labor on the Sabbath day, so that he 


'Mishna B. Metzia I, 5: _mbsbo 5992 ann vbown AN 
a5 smb dy wrpnd ? ney andy 
myosin nd wy oD na ww nonin adpw ay 
poand ayn oyain id ew pn 12 wy rat 5a AS 
Other examples are furnished in Tal. Yehamoth 7a, and Kheri. 
thoth 2b, 


Li? HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


who kindles fire on that day, transgresses only a prohibitory 
law, but is not subject to that severe punishment which the 
preceding verse appoints for other kinds of labor. 


FourTH MopIFICcATION. RULE X, 
§ 48. 
IY Now ans yyw Pywo? Nv OOD3 Mnwass 45 
VON OPAD NB 


Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, is 
separately mentioned with a provision differing from that contained 
tm the general, such a case is mentioned for the purpose of alleviat- 
tiny as well as of aggravating. 

This rule may be illustrated by the passage in Ex. XXI, 
28-32. There the law provides that if a man or woman has 
been killed by a beast that had not been duly guarded by the 
proprietor, though its savage nature was known to him, that 
proprietor, besides losing the mischievous animal, had to 
pay (to the bereaved family) such an indemnification as may 
be laid upon him by the court. After this general provision 
the law adds that ifa male or female slave was killed by such 
a vicious animal, its proprietor has to pay to the master of 
the slave an indemnification of ¢#7rty shekels. Now the case 
of male or female slave, though included in the preceding gen- 
eral law of man and woman, is here separately mentioned 
with a provision different from the general in this, that the 
amount of the indemnification is fixed. This separate provision 
is for the purnose of alleviating as well as aggravating; ad/e- 


2) 
viating in the case of the actual value of the killed slave being 


'Talm. Sabbath 70a, and Sanhederin 35b: my 5 mayan. 

There is however another opinion represented by R. Nathan who, 
interpreting this special prohibition of ‘kindling fire’ according to 
the second modification (Rule VIII), holds: nxy pdnd Mayan, this 
special prohibition of one kind of labor is an indication that each of 
several labors done on a Sabbath-day is to be regarded as a separ- 
ate desecration of tbat day, for which the transgrassor, under 
circumstances, had to bring a separate sin - offering. Talm. ibid. 


MODIFICATIONS. 173 


more, and aggravating in the case of its being less than thirty 
shekels. 


See Mechilta, Mishpatim, Parsha XT and Mishna B. Kam- 
ma IV, 5. 


FirtH MODIFICATION. RULE XI. 
.§ 49. 


wonn rats 75 55am jo gsm 5553 mnw ast 55 
wisps 15595 ainamasimy sy 19555 ind aN ON 


Wherever a single case, though included in a general law, 1s ex- 
cepted from tt by an entirely new provision, such a case ts not to be 
brought again under the general law, unless this be expressly indic- 
ated in the Scripture. 

An illustrating example is furnished in Ley. XIV, 11-16. 
One of the two sacrifices which the healed leper had to bring 
for his purification was a ¢respass-offering (DWN). But while 
the blood of trespass-offerings in general was sprinkled only 
onthe altar, the offering of the healed leper made an excep- 
tion in this, that some of its blood was applied to the person 
of him that was to be cleansed (verse 25). This peculiar way 
of sprinkling is yoann 127 the entirely new (extraordinary) 
provision by which this sacrifice is excepted from the general 
law of trespass-offerings. | Hence it would have to be excepted 
also trom the other ordinances and rites regarding trespass-offer- 
ings, had not the Scripture expressly brought it again under 
the general law by adding (verse 13 S17 QWANT MNwnd) that 
this offering was otherwise to be sacrificed as a trespass-offer- 
ing in the usual way. Talm. Zebachim 49a. 


CHAPTER VI 
RULES XII AND XIII. 


THE EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. RULE XII. 


§ 50. 


WiDd TH9n wT ye som 124 
A word (or passage) ts to be explained from its connection or 
Jrom what follows. 


That is to say,the true meaning of a law or of a clause in a 
law is sometimes to be interpreted by considering the whole 
context inwhich it stands or by looking tothat which follows.? 

Examples: 

a. Explaining an ambiguous word from the context: 

The word mpwsn occurs in Levit. XI,18,among the names 
of unclean fowls, and again in verse 30 among the: creeping 
things on earth. Hence, it is corcluded, that the law does not 
refer to the same animal, but in the former place toa certain 
kind of bird (namely according to LXX the szan, and accord- 
ing to the Talmud, to the da/), and in the other place to 
the mole.2 

b. Explaining the meaning of a passage from the context. 


In Ex. XVI, 29, we read: ‘‘Abide you every man in his 
place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” If 
taken out of its connection, this passage would contain an in- 
junction that no Israelite shall leave his place on the Sabbath 
day. But ifwe look to the context, we find that it refers to 


1Sompare the following rule of modern jurisprudence with refer- 
ence to the mode of construing deeds and written instruments: Hx 
antecedentibus et consequentibus fit optima interpretatio. ‘‘A passage 
will be best interpreted by reference to that wich precedes and fol- 
lows it”. (Broom, Legal Maxims 577). Compare also the maxim: NVos- 
citur a soctis ‘‘The meaning of a clause may be ascertained by ref- 
erence to the meaning of expressions associated with it” (ibi. 588). 


*Chullin 68a: AD IYO W997 WAT MwA Ns3a nowsan 
4) oswwsy M2 nowsn 


THE EXPLANATION FROM THE CONTEXT. 175 


the manna gatherers, prohibiting them to go out on the Sab- 
bath day with the intention to seek manna.} 

c. Interpreting a clause in a law by aclause which follows: 

In Deut. XIX, 5 relating to the cities of refuge for the 
manslayer, the law says: ‘Lest the avenger of the blood pur- 
sue the slayer and overtake him and slay him ; avd he ts not 
worthy of death etc.” This last clause is somewhat ambiguous, 
whether referring to the dood avenger or to the manslayer. 
The latter interpretation is supported by the clause following 
it: ‘“nas much ashe hated him not in time past.’” 


RECONCILIATION OF CONFLICTING PASSAGES. RULE XIII. 
Saa he 


Mm OS A Dns DANS ww 

DS. PDN ww BNI Sw Ty 
Two passuges contradicting each other are, tf possible, to be re- 

conciled by a third one. * 

As an instance of poner dictony passages we may refer to 
Ex. XIII, 6 and Deut. XVI, 8. While the former passage en- 
joins: ‘Seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread,” the lat- 
ter passage says: ‘“Szx days thou shalt eat unleavened bread.” 
In a plain way, the contradiction between these two pas- 





1This p!ain interpretation according to the context is also adopt- 
ed by Rashi in his commentary on this passage. Talmudical 
interpretation, however, disregarded in this case the context, and 
deduced from the words of this passage the general prohibition that 
no Israelite shall, on a Sabbath-day, go farther than 2000 cubits 
from the place of his abode (naw oinn ‘“‘the Sabbath way”); for 
that was the distance of the holy tabernacle from the remotest 
nart of the Israelitish camp in the desert. See Talm. Erubin 51a. 


*Maccoth 10b: 337) DNIA AYN. MD paw prrdy 

@onn Sea xox IN IN MYA WIN ANN 

mwoy Synod xd saw iS sam aw 8 nw 

Ay pelt oie h met a ge aol 
* Compare the following rule of interpretation established in 
molern jurisprudence (Potter, Dwarris treatise on statutes p. 144): 
‘‘Where there is a discrepancy or disagreeynent between two statutes, 
such interpretation should be given that both may, if possible, stand 

together.” 


176 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


sages may be removed by taking the latter passage in the 
sense that six days unleavened bread shall be eaten, but that 
on the seventh, besides this observance, a holy convocation 
shall be held; or, that unleavened bread shall be eaten during 
six days Jdesides the first, the celebration of which had been 
treated more fully in the preceding verses. 

In a more artificial way, the rabbinical interpretation 
tries to reconcile the contradictory passages according to our 
Rule by referring to a third passage, namely Lev. XXIII, 14 
where the law enjoins that no use whatsoever was allowed to 
be made of the new corn until the offering of an Omer of the 
first produce of the barley harvest had taken place on the 
morning after the first day of Pesach. Hence unleavened 
bread prepared of the new corn was to be eaten only during 
the six remaining days of that festival. Referring to this cir— 
cumstance, the passage in Deut. XVI, 8 speaks of six days, 
while the passage in Ex XIII, 6 refers to the unleavened bread 
prepared of the produce ofthe former year’s harvest which 
might be eaten during seven days.! 

Remark. Some of the Rabbis however, apply in their interpret- 
ation of Deut. XVI, 8 the Rule VIII and arrive at the conclusion 
that,just as, according to this passage, the eating of unleavened bread 
on the seventh day was optional, so it was also optional on the first 
six days, so that it was not obligatory to eat just that whichis prop- 
erly called unleavened bread (Matza), provided that nothing is eaten 
which is leavened (Chametz). Only on the first eve of this festival 
the eating ot such unleavened bread was regarded as obligatory, as the 


law concerning the paschal-lamb on the eve expressly enjoins (Ex. 
XII, 8) ‘‘with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.’” 


* Mechilta, Bo, VIII (compare also Talmud Menachoth 66a): 
nYIYv WX INAS DN) Aww We INk AND 
29559 mxapp cw wpm Iy1D 
jw yO Ayaw win jo aww NN 
* Pesachim 120a: Nw DY NwY AX Mw yay AD 


CHAPTER VII. 
ADDITIONAL RULES. 


A. JUXTAPOSITION. 


§ 52. 


A peculiar kind of analogy which has some similarity to 
Heckesh (above p. 152) is that called poqtaD contiguous passages, 
or the azalogy made from the juxtaposition of two laws in Script- 
ure. ; 

The theory of this rule is that the meaning of a law is 
sometimes explained from another law or passage which is 
placed near by, either preceding or following it.’ 

The following examples will illustrate this rule: 

1. The word Mamzer (usually translated a dasfard) in the 
law Deut. XXIII, 3: ‘‘A Mamzer shall not enter the congrega- 
tion of the Lord” denotes, according to rabbinical interpreta- 
tion, one born of incest or adultery. This interpretation is 
based on the circumstance that a preceding law (ib. verse 1.) 
interdicts an incestuous connection.’ 

2. The law prohibits every labor on Sabbath, without 
specifying the occupations included in that interdiction, thus 
leaving a wide scope to individual opinion on the nature of 
Sabbatical labor. Tradition, in order to prevent arbitrariness 
in so important a point, tried to fill out this void by a detailed 
definition of the nature of work, and minutely specified the 
labors which are allowed and which are forbidden on Sabbath. 
The Talmud distinguishes thirty nine chief labors MiDNd5D MSN, 
comprising all those occupations which were necessary for the 


1 This rule was probably introduced by R. Akiba, see Siphre, 
Numbers 181: 43) naWwDW AWAD DD WIN y"9 


2 Yebamoth 49a. 
PIN NWR AN wee npr xd 


stop wa xd md qrpi 


178 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


construction of the holy tabernacle. This is based on the cir- 
cumstance that Scripture repeatedly (Exod XXXI 1-17; 
XXXV, 1 sq.) brought the Sabbath law in juxtaposition with 
the description of the tabernacle.’ 

Remark. The theory of }3\19D which Ben Azai, one of R. Akiba’s 
disciples, even applied in the construction of criminal laws, was not 
generally adopted. R. Jehuda ben Iai, another disciple of R. Akiba, 
is especially mentioned as having been opposed to its general application. 
He strongly objected to a deduction based by the former on that the- 
ory in the case of acertain capital crime, remarking with astonishment: 
“How, shall we inflict the punishment of stoning upon a criminal be- 
cause two laws are incidentally in juxtaposition?” (Yebamoth 4a; San- 
hedrin 67b.). : 

He admitted the analogy from juxtaposition only in cer- 
tain cases, especially in regard to laws found in the book of Deuternomy 
where the laws are evidently arranged according to a certain plan, 
while in regard to the other books of the Pentateuch it is held: psx 
MIN3 AMIN) Op ‘“‘there is no certain order for the sequence of the 
laws” (Pesachim 6b),hence no analogy must there be based on the jux- 
taposition of two laws (Sanhedrin ibid.). 


§ 53. 


Another kind of jsD113D consists in the method of sepa- 
rating the final part of a clause or sentence and connecting it 
with the beginning of the following clause or sentence, and in 
this way artiticially forming a new sentence, the sense of which 
is to support a certain traditional law. 


This peculiar method may be illustrated by the following 
examples. 


1. It was a traditional rule of law, based on common 
sense, that a judge was unfit to sit in court when known to 
nourish inimical feelings either against the defendant or against 
one of his fellow judges. In the absence of an express passage 


2 Talm. Sabbath 49b: won nay 3229 MaNdyp nN; see Rashi’s 
Commentary on this passage. Other examples of this kind of analogy 
are found in Pesachiin 96a; Yebamoth 4a. 


ADDITIONAL RULES. bios 


in the Mosaic law bearing on this rule, the Rabbis construed 
au artificial support inthe following way. In Numbers XXXYV, 
23, in the law about unintentional murder, it is said..... 
‘whereas he was not his enemy, and did not seek his harm”. 
These words plainly refer to the slayer and the slain man, but 
by connecting them with the beginning of the following sen 
tence (verse 24): ‘the congregation (i. e. the court) shall 
judge...”, the new sentence is construed: Being no enemies and 
not seeking his harm, they shall judge as a court.! 

2. In Lev. XXIII, 22 we read:... ‘‘and the gleaning of 
thy harvest thou shalt not gather ; unto the poor and the stranger 
shalt thou leave them.’ By closely connecting the end of the 
first clause with the beginning of the next clause, the sentence 
is formed : “‘¢hou shalt not gather unto the poor’, intimating that 
the owner of the field has no right to gather the gleaning in 
behalf of a certain poor and thereby depriving the other poor 
of their claim to that gleaning warranted them by the laws.’ 


B. RESTRICTIVE RULES IN THE APPLICATION OF ANALOGY. 
§ 54 


By way of a plain analogy, particular provisions of the 
law concerning a certain case are in the Talmud often trans- 
ferred to another case. This method is termed 33°31 7D; 
(compare above p. 159). The phrases used in this process are 
either... 7) j2B>» or ....jo jaa, we derive, learn (this pro- 
vision) from (that other case of...). 

The use of analogy for such purpose presupposes consisten- 
cy in the law, so that its provisions in one case were intended 
to apply also to an another similar case. But though the two 
cases from the comparison of which an analogy is drawn need 
not to be alike in all respects, stifl they must, at least, be- 
long to the same sphere of the law. The provisions con 





i Ay wEwT ny weap xd xd ane ed nm 
(ay xd swt) psd sn 
SnND PTD pawy pre Mer penwy n’n ww) 7x 
Talm. Sanhedrin 29a: compare Rashi’s commentary. 
* Tal, Gittin 12a: syn nx yron xd 25 ppdn Nd 


180 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


nected with the one case cannot be applied to another case 
which is totally different in its legal nature. Hence the follow- 
ing restrictive rules in the application of analogy: 
1, j2D9o ND NNOOD NUON 
DD. NO NTOND ROO 
In a ritual case we do not apply an analogy from a civil 


case, and vice versa. Berachoth 19a; Baba Metzia 20a; Kid- 
dushin 3b. | 


2, jPD ND NDIPD NNDD 

In a case concerning pecuniary restitution we do not apply 
an analogy from a case concerning fine. Kethuboth 46b; Kid- 
dushin 3b. 

3. IAN? owIpp pdin 

In a case concerning profane things we do not apply an 
analogy from laws concerning sanctified things. Pesachim 45a; 
Shebuoth 26b; Nazir 36b. 

4. qomp3 Nd wiinp 

From an extraordinary, exceptional case we make no ana- 
logy. Pesachim 44b; Moed Katon 7b; Chullin 98b. 


C. LIMITED OR UNLIMITED EFFECT OF AN ANALOGY. 
§ 55. 


When provisions of one law (A) are to be applied to an- 
other law (B) by virtue of a traditional analogy (the construc- 
tional Gezera Shava, compare above § 24), the question arises 
whether those laws are to be treated alike in every respect,so 
that all particulars found in A are applicable to Bor whether 
the consequences of such an analogy are to be restricted to 
the main provision only. Concerning this question two differ- 
ent Opinions are expressed. 

* A similar rule is also laid down in modern law interpretation; 
compare Fr. Lieber, Legal and Political Hermeneutics, p. 276: ‘An ex- 
ceptional case can of itself sustain no analogy, since the instance from 


which we reason, the analogon, must always be one which implies the 
rule’, 


ADDITIONAL RULES. 181 


One opinion, represented by R. Meir, holds: mami mp "7 
“deduce from it, and again from it”, that is tosay, any further 
provision connected with A may be transferred to B. 


But the other opinion is: SANS SPAN) AID pT Cdeduce 
from it, and (as for the rest) leave it in its place”, that is to 
say, after having transferred the main provision of A to B, we 
are to let B retain its own character and the provisions ex- 
pressly connected with it. 


The difference between these two opinions may be illustrat- 
ed by the following example. 


In Deut. XXIII, 3, the law provides that a Mamzer, that 
is, one born of incest, ‘‘shall not enter the congregation of the 
Lord, even to the tenth generation.” A similar provision has an- 
other law concerning an Ammonite and a Moabite: ‘‘Zven to 
the tenth generation they shall not enter into the congregation 
of the Lord, for ever.” By aGezera Shava the conclusion is 
made that also inthe former luw concerning Mamzer the phrase 
‘even to the tenth generation” is to be understood ‘‘for ever”. 
(See above p. 150). 


But while the term JZamzer implics the female as well as 
the male, the masculin form of the words ‘aN (By is taken 
by tradition strictly, referring to males only, but not to females 
(Mszioy N71 Dy). 

According to the opinion of 7311 7319 115, a female AZamzer, 
after the tenth generation, might be admitted to enter the con- 
eregation ; her case being then, in all respects, analogous to 
that of a female Amonite who 1s exempted from the prohibi- 
tion. | 

But according to the opinion of s"AN3 SPIN 739 7, the 
two laws are analogous only in respect to the meaning of the 
phrase ‘‘even to the tenth generation”, while the expression 
Mamzer always retains its comprehensive meaning, including 
females as well as males. See Yebamoth 78b. Another ex- 
ample Shebuoth 31a. 


182 HERMENEUTICS OF THE 'TALMUD.: 


D. REFUTATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF HERMENEUTIC 
ARGUMENTS. 


§ 56. 


The generalization of a Special Law (above Chapter III) 
may be refuted by the objection that a particular circumstance 
is connected with that special law which renders it unfit to be 
generalized or to be applicable to other cases. 

The phrase used in such a refutation is the same as that 
which is used in refuting the premise of an inference of Kal 
Vechomer (see above p. 137), namely:..... jpw 9D AD 

‘Why is that special provision made for the case A? Be- 
cause that certain peculiarity is connected with this case’’.... 

After such a refutation, the attempt is usualky made to de- 
fend the Binyan Ab by a reference to case B having the same 
provision, though not connected with that peculiarity. Ifthen 
also the generalization of case B is objected to, on account of 
an other peculiarity connected with its provision, this objection 
is again removed by a reference to case A in which that pecu- 
liarity is not found. The common provision of A and B is then 
generalized according to the usual method of ‘3w1 SN p33 
mains. (See above vn. 160’. The procedure of this combined 
generalization is usually introduced by the following phrase: 

JOIY TWh TSA ATT AP 89 pa am 

‘The conclusion returns (that is,the former argument is to 
be reinstated), for A is not like B, and vice versa, but the 
common point of both is.....”” Examples: Maccoth 2b; Sanhed 
rin 66a. 

Remark. The same dialectic procedure and the same 
phrases are also applied where a refuted inference of Kal Ve- 
chomer is to be reinstated by a combination of two similar cas- 
es, asin Berachoth 35a ; Kiddushin 5 b; B. Metzia 4a, and 
often. 


KE. Tae THEORY OF EXTENSION AND LIMITATION. 
SNE: 


The term 35 means exfension; wry limitation. The idea 


ADDITIONAL RULES. 183 


connected with each of these two terms when applied separate- 
ly, was explained in the introductory chapter § 6 and § 7. 
We have here to consider their meaning when applied con- 
jointly mipi us to signify a theory in contradistinction to 
that of mip 555 (chapter IV). 

In as much as a general term (555) denotes an indefinite 
number of individuals having something in common, it may also 
be regarded as ‘57, an extension of the meaning; and in as 
much as a particular, singular term (p15) restricts the mean- 
ing to definite individuals, it may be regarded as piy%, a lim- 
itation. 

That which in the theory of R. Ishmael is called wipi 555, 
is according to the theory of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba regard- 
ed as pip N34. 

There is the following difference between these two the- 
ories. 

a) Ina combination of pp} 555, the particular is regard- 
ed as the explanation of the preceding general, so as to narrow 
down its comprehension to the strict contents of the particular, 
excluding even that which is similar to this (AO NOs 5552 MNS 
papsy, see above § 42). 

According to the other theory, the wpiy% merely limits the 
extension of the preceding ‘35,80 as to include everything sim- 
ilar. and exclude that only which is not similar to it. 

SOIT pw wy Som man wip 1 wa 

b) Inacombination of 552. p1b the geueral following a 
particular includes everything falling under the general (comp. 
Rule V. § 43). But according to the other theory, the ‘23> fol- 
lowing the pip includes that only which is similar to that 
Dip. 

c) Ina combination of 555) opi 555 we include only that 
which resembles the particular (comp. Rule VI. § 44). 


But, according to the other theory, the rule for sipis N24 
371 is, that the “a5 includes everything, even that which is 
not similar to the wip, the effect of the latter being, however, 
to exclude merely one single thing which has the least simil- 


184 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


arity to it. To define this one thing to be excluded, is entire- 
ly left to the judgment of the expounding Rabbis.: 


Sms 127858 py sd Son nasa sa yD 
The theory of pip i 434, being not as clear and exact as 
that of mi51 555, is rejected by most of the Tanaim, and ad- 
initted only in some special cases.? 


The difference between these two theories is illustrated by 
the following example. 


In Levit. V, 21-23, the law provides that if an embezzler 
without having been coxvicted before a court, but prompted 
by his conscience, wants to expiate the sin of his injury to 
some person in respect to property, then*he has to restore the 
fraudulently acquired property, with the addition of one fifth 
of its value, and besides bring a trespass-offering. The law in- 
troduces the case by the words: 


“If a person commits a misdeed, and “es to his neighbor 
(General) concerning a ¢rust or a deposit (Particulars), ete. ete. 


or whatever it may be about which he has sworn falsely (General), 
then he shall restore etc”. 


According to the theory of 555° pip; 552, these expres- 
sions are to be construed in a way that the mulct of one fifth 
of the original amount is required for such embezzled objects 
only which are movadles; and have an intrinsic value, the former 
excluding veal estate, and the latter excluding 2/s or notes. 


But according to the theory of my} ‘25, the law refers 
to any kind of embezzled property, ¢cluding real estate, exclud- 
ing, however, 4dz//s or notes which have merely a representative 
value. 


The argumentation according to these two theories is expressed in 
the following way: 


*See Rashi on Talm. Kiddushin 2!b, and on Shebuoth 4b. 
"Sev B. Kamma 64b; Shebuoth 5a; Chullin 67a. 


ADDITIONAL RULES. 185 


B A 
SIP OT MIST WIT pS say 9909 °wT IST 
139 — nya wn 553 — InvyI YN) 
Dy — TW NOAWNI IW pIpH3a HD — VT NIwWNA WwW NIppha 
Va Pmt ene 1a leas mel 225s S319 IN 55>) WH — YIM TS pia) als 


Soa am yp yan ota pya sds. tans ox 5$5) opr 555 

op Sacasoasorn — yo0 1B Sydonn 735 wan pren AD 

MIO WI" PYND ND “oo iin Sodunn 55 aN 

poodpr paw myprp my 

2D | PAW MDW NY 

Talm. B. Kamma 117b; Shebuoth 37b. Other examples:Succah 
50b; Kiddushin 21b; Shebuoth 26a. 


FF, ‘“MriKRA” or ‘‘Masorna’”’? 
§ 58 


Although our vowel-signs of the Biblical text were not yet 
introduced at the Talmudic period, still the correct pronun- 
ciation according to the vowels was fixed by oral tradition. 

The reading of the text according to the established pro- 
nunciation was called y1pp (reading). The proper spelling 
of the words of the sacred text as fixed by tradition, letters 
without vowels, is termed J/asora (MID or ANE). 

The peculiar spelling of many words sometimes admits a 
meaning somewhat different from that which is expressed by 
the established pronunciation or our present vocalization. 
The question then arises whether in such a case the law is to 
be intrepreted according to the vowel reading or rather accord- 
ing to the letters with which the word is spelled in the Magora. 

In this respect two opposite opinions are expressed in the 
Talmud. One holds: s1p9 ox w ‘The source of law is in 
the reading” i, e. the reading of a word according to its estab- 
lished vocalization is essential to decide its meaning. The 
other opinion is: mio) ox we “the source is in the Masorc,” 
that is, the spelling of the word as fixed by the Masora is more 
material in defining its meaning. 


186 HERMENEUTICS OF THE TALMUD. 


Example: Speaking of the cities of refuge to which he who 
unintentionally killed a fellow-man was to flee, the law illustrates 
the case of such an unintentional homicide by the following 
words: AS when a man goeth into the the woods with his 
neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the 
axe to cut down the tree, pyn jp Sian Swai and the tron slip 
peth from the wood, and findeth his neighbor, that he die, etc.” 
(Deutr. XIX, 5.) 

According to the opinion of spo? ON, this passage refers 
only to the case where the killing happened by the iron of the 
axe slipping from the helve. But according to the opinion of 
mouipysS os the letters of the word 5y3; admit that word to be 
read 5y3; in the Piel form, so as to give the sense ‘‘and the iron 
splints a piece from the tree”, hence this passage refers only 
to acase where the killing happened by a piece of wood which 
the axe cut from the tree. 


Bbire bya) smaion> os we 150 °S4 
ip by) WIPO? ON WeDo II 


Maccoth 7b; other ene Pesachim 86a, and Sanhedrin 4a. 

In this, as in most of other cases, the opinion of spo) ox 
prevailed. The opposite opinion was accepted only where it 
served to support a traditional interpretation of a law; for in- 
stance, that the expression of pon mipD (Levit XXIII, 40) 
which the Masora spells M55 (without 4) refers only to one 
branch of the palm tree (Talm. Succah 32a). 


CLOSING REMARK. 


Concluding this exposition of the principal rules of Talmu- 
dical Hermeneutics, we must remind the student that this sys- 
tem of artificial interpretation was mainly calculated to offer 
the means of ingrafting the tradition on the stem of Scripture, 
or harmonizing the ora/ with the written law. 

Modern scientific exegesis, having no other object than to 
determine the exact and natural sense of each passage in Scrip- 
ture, must resort to hermeneutic rules fitted to that purpose, 
and can derive but little benefit from that artificial system. 


CLOSING REMARK, 187 


Thus already the great Jewish Bible commentators in the Mid- 
dle Ages, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and others who are justly re- 
garded as the fathers of that thoroughly sound and scientific 
system of exegesis that prevails in modern times, remained in 
their interpretation of the Bible entirely independent of the 
hermeneutic rules of Hillel, R. Ishmael and R. Akiba. Never- 
theless, this system deserves our attention, since it forms a very 
essential part of the groundwork on which the mental structure 
of the Talmud is reared. It must be known even in its details, 
if the Talmudic discussions, which often turn on some nice 
point of the rules of that system, are to be thoroughly under- 
stood. 





PALE Lis 


TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 


TALMUDICAL TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


PREFATORY. 


Like any other branch of science and literature, the Talmud 
has its peculiar system of technical terms and phrases adapted 
to its peculiar methods of investigation and demonstration. 
To familiarize the student with these methods and with the 
terms and phrases most frequently used in the Talmud is the ob- 
ject of the following chapters. As the Mishna is the text on | 
which the Gemara comments, we begin with the explanation 
of some of the terms in reference to certain features in the 
structure of the Mishna. We shall then proceed to the various 
modes and terms used by the Gemara in explaining and discus- 
sing the Mishna. .This will be followed by an exposition of the 
ways in which the Talmud generally discusses the reports and 
opinions of the Amoraim. Finally, the methods and processes 
of Talmudical argumentation and debates as well as the terms 
and stereotyped phrases connected therewith, will be set forth. 


A. THE MISHNA. 


CHAPTER I. 


TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE STRUCTURE OF A MISHNA 
PARAGRAPH, 


ono 
§ 1. 


.»c .ishna very often simply lays down the law without 
mentioning its author or any conflict of opinions that existed 
in regard to it. Such a Paragraph of the Mishna is termed 
OnpD, an anonymous and undisputed Mishna. Examples: Bera- 
choth I, 4; III, 1-3. 


Such anonymous and undisputed Mishna paragraphs -~are 
generally regarded as authoritative. They are mostly of a ve- 
ry ancient origin, having been incorporated into the work of R. 
Jechuda Hanasi from older Halacha collections made by former 
teachers, especially that of R. Meir. yp ‘4 PIN OND, 
Sanhedrin 86a. 

npn 


§ 2. 

Often also the Mishna reports a conflict of opinions in regard 
to a certain law. Such a conflict is termed npyne a division 
or difference of opinion. 

The conflicting opinions are set forth in different ways: 

a. After having laid down the anonymous rule of law,the 
dissenting opinion of a certain teacher is added by: spy 3355 5, 
Rabbi A says.. In such cases, the anonymous author ofthe 
first opinion is ere in the Gemara NDP SIN the former tea- 
cher. ‘Example: Berachoth IV, 1. 

Remark. As the anonymous opinion represents that of the teachers 
in general, the Gemara sometimes calls it also p'95n “35 the words 
(the collective opinion) of the sages; f. i. Sanhedrin 31a. 

b. A rule of law is laid down with the addition ™ “35 


192 TERMINOLOGY. AND METHODOLOGY. 


i 9giop these are the words of Rabbi A, and then the dissent- 
ing opinion is introduced by :4p5~8 ‘3 °75D but Rabbi B 
says...; or the question of law is propounded, and then the dis- 
senting opinions concerning it are introduced by “pix ’s dob 3 
“ois ‘s°nb5p 1. Examples: Berachoth II, 1 and 3. 

Such a difference of opinion in which the opposite views 
are represented by single teachers is teimed in the Gemara 
Sm am npyna a difference between individuals. 

c. The opinion of a single teacher concerning a question 
of law having been set forth, the collective opinion of other 
contemporary teachers differing therefrom is introduced by: 
Dis ONDDM) but the (other) sages say.... Example: Bera- 
choth VI, 4. 

Such a conflict of opinions between an individual and a 
majority of other teachers is termed in the Gemara nosny 
Ds WM a conflict between an individual and the majority. Gene- 
rally, the opinion of the majority prevails. This rule is phrased: 
oan moon peas asm where an individual and the majority 
differ from each other, the opinion of the majority is Halacha 
(the accepted law). Berachoth 9a. 

* d. The conflicting opinions are represented by different 
schools, especially those of Shamai and Hillel. 

Examples: Berachoth I, 1; VIII, 1. 5. 7. 8. 

Remark. In a conflict between those two schools the opinion of 
the School of Hillel generally prevails. Ajwy mS 7/3 Dipda wa Be- 
rachoth 36b. 

NOY SD IND D NW 
§ 3. 

Where a Mishna paragraph contains provisions for two 
or more cases, the former case is signified by xy (the case at 
the beginning), and the following or last case by "b%D (the case 


at the end). The case between these two is termed pny wy 
the middle case, 


Example for a Mishna paragraph with two cases: B. Metzia 
I, 3; for one with three cases: B. Metzia I, 4. See also Gema 
ra Kiddushin 63a; Kerithoth 316; Chullin 94b. 

In a paragraph divided into two main parts, A and B, 
each containing two cases, aand b, the case cf A bh is termed 
NWT ND, and that of B, a ND%DT Nw. 


TERMS AND PHRaSES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 193 


Example: Shebuoth VI, 7. Compare Talmud Shebuoth 
43b; B. Metzia 34b. 


Remark. <A part of a Mishna paragraph referring to a separate 
case or proposition is also termed x3) (gate, section, clause); hence 
the terms xw 75 825 the clause of the first proposition, N5°DI N59 
the clause of the subsequent proposition. Sabbath 3a; Yebamoth 18b, 


nye 
§ 4. 


The Mishna, in general, simply lays down the rule of law 
without stating its reason. At times, however, the reason is 
added. The reason of a law is termed py. It is either based 
a) on a biblical passage (Sp) and its interpretation, and is 
then usually introduced by 3 N34; or b) on common sense 
(N12D); or c) on a general principle (555). 

Examples: a) Berachoth IX, 5; B. Metzia II, 7.10. b) B. 
Metzia I, 7; II, 11. c) B: Kamma III, 10.11. 


Remark. The Gemara generally invertigates the reasonot the 
law where it is not stated in the Mishna. 


nnnoD 
esr: 

Also the different opinions of the teachers concerning a point 
of the law are generally set forth in the Mishna without the reason 
of the difference being added. Occasionally, however, not only 
the reason of one or both of the contradictory opinions is stated, 
but even a shorter or longer controversy is recorded in which 
the teachers argue in opposition to each other on some questions 
oflaw. Such a controversy is termad in the Gemara yradp. 
The elaborate argumentation pro and con is also termed pw 
jn} or in Aramaic S7D1 Sopw (literally, a taking and giving 
of arguments, 1. e., a azscussion), Examples of controversies in 
the Mishna: Berachoth I, 3; Pesachim VI, 2; Taanith I, Deb. 
Kamma II, 5. 

nwyp 
§ 6. 


The Mishna sometimes adds to its rule of law or to its 


194 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


opinions of the contesting teachers the report of a certain case 
in which a celebrated anthority gave a decision either 1) in 
accordance with or 2) in contradiction to the rule just laid 
down or the opinion just expressed. Such a report is usually 
introduced by the word pvp it is a reported fact that...., 
it once occured that... 

Examples ad 1: Berachoth I, 1; Bechoroth IV, 4; ad 2: B. 
Metzia VIII, 8; Gittin I, 5. 

mos 955 
Sa) Uh 


The word 555, often occurring the Mishna, signifies a gener- 
al rule, a guiding principle of a law. Such a general rule either 
precedes or follows the details of a law. 

Where it precedes the details, it 1s usually introduced by 
the words ps 55D they (i. e. the former teachers) established 
the following rule concerning.... | 

Examples: Pea I, 4;Shebiith VII, 1. 2; Maaseroth I, 1. 
Sabbath VII, 1. 

Where the general law follows the details. it is introduced 
by 555m nt this is the general rule..... 

Examples: Berachoth VI, 7; Pesachim III, 1; B. Metzia 
Teen. 

Remark. The Gemara usually investigates the necessity of this ge- 
neral rule by asking: *8 NN) what is this to add?i.e; which new 
cases is this general rule to imply besides those explicitly stated in the 


details of the law? 
Pin 22 122 


§ 8. 

Paragraphs of the Mishna containing a generalizing or 
comprehensive provision are introduced by S5/or 95a alae 
“every”, ‘whatever’. Mostly some exceptions from such a 
generalizing provision are added by the word pin ‘‘except”.. 

Examples: Chagiga I, 1; Kiddushin I, 6. 7.9; Gittin H, 
5.; Chullin 1,1. 


Remark. The Gemara finds that such comprehensive provisions 
are not always exact, as they often admit of exceptions besides those 
expressly stated inthe Mishna. Erubin 27a; Kiddushin 34a. 


TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 195 


Shela 


Sour 

Without laying down a general rule, the Mishna sometimes 
states the exact number of cases to which a certain law refers 
and then specifies those cases more fully, f. i. “there are four 
main kinds of damages to property, namely....” B. Kamma iF, 
1; or: ‘‘Marriage may be contracted in three ways, namely...” 
Kiddushin I, 1. Such a stated number is termed sg3959%. 

Remark. The Gemara finds that such a number is intended to 
limit the law exactly to those cases mentioned in the Mishna, so as to 
exclude certain other cases, and the question is generally made : 
ND MIDS NID What cases are excluded by this limiting number? 


Svar 
§ 10. 
Another limitation of the Mishna occurs, where certain 


cases are enumcrated by the introductory words 45» “these 
DEC we OleN est hississ.c: 


Examples: Pea I, 1; Pesachim II, 5; Yebamoth III, 3. 5. 

Remark. Also where these limiting words are used in the Mishna 
the Gemara usually asks: ‘x9 ‘wiyn5 what cases are excluded by this 
limitation? 

anu t carl pets 
§ 11, 

Still another limitation admitting of no other exceptions 
t ian those expressly mentioned, is found, where the Mishna points 
out the only difference that in certain legal respects exists 
betwcen two things, by the limiting phrase: EN Nee aN 
“there is no difference between...and....except in regard...” 

Examples: Megilla I, 4-11, 


sy] NIN 
§ 12. 


Where the Mishna enumerates different cases to which a 


196 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


certain law applies without fixing their number and without using 
any of those limiting terms mentioned above, the enumerated 
cases do not always exclude other cases to which the same law 
applies. The Gemara uses in this case the phrase: Wi NIN 
‘the Mishna teaches concerning certain cases, and leaves 
others to be added”. 

Examples: Taanith 14a; B. Kamma 10a; Maccoth 21b. 


TT NS TD 
$13. 


Where in enumerating certain cases of a law a subsequent 
case 18 more unexpected than the preceding, the Gemara uses 
the phrase 93np 1 AN 1 x5 ‘the Mishna teaches not only that, 
but even this,” that is, the Mishna intended to arrange the 
cases in a climax, starting from that which is plain,and adding 
that which is more unexpected. 

Examples: B. Metzia III, 4 and 5, See Talm. B. Metzia 
38a. 


Remark. The climax in the arrangement of several cases is also ex- 
pressed by the Talmudical phrase:..;5 ax x5x syn xd Np yl Nd 
the author of the Mishna states here a case of ‘“‘not only”; not only as 
to...but even .., i. e., the Mishna adds here to that which is unquestion- 
able (plain and obvious enough) that which is more unexpected. 

Examples: Betza 37a; B. Kamma 54b; Kiddushin 78b. 


WADI PAS PR 
§ 14. 


On the other hand, the Mishna sometimes arranges the 
cases of a law in an anticlimax, so that the subsequent case is 
self-evident from the preceding. This is expressed in the Ge- 
mara by the phrase: 47 31915 Jay PRI Ww “that,and it is unnec- 
essary .to say this” i. e. after having stated the law in the 
former case, it applies the more to the following case. 

Example: Rosh Hashana IV, 8; see Talm. R. Hashana 
82b, 33a. 


TERMS AND PHRASES REGARDING THE MISHNA. 197 


sti) ctabhinineb, 
§ 15. 


Of these two antithetical terms the Gemara makes frequent 
use in the interpretation of the Mishna, especially in questions 
ofthe ritual law. nonma5 means, literally, as for the beginning, 
at the outset, beforehand, previously. The term denotes the 
question of law concerning an act to be done, whether it may 
properly be done in that certain manner or not, 


Tay°t (contraction of 4s) °N7) means 7f he has done. In 
contradistinction to the former, this term denotes the question 
of law concerning an: act a/ready done, whether iv is valid and 
acceptable or not. 

The phrases in connection with these two terms are: 

1 mdonn5d id: Dx or soa moon even directly, i. e. the ex: 
pression of the Mishna indicates a direct permission to do the 
act under consideration, so that it may be done unhesitatingly. 

Example: Tal. Chullin 2a. 
| 2) so nosnns? PN Ty. 2f done, yes, but directly not okey 
only if it has already been done, it is acceptable and legiti- 
mate, but directly permissible it is not. 

Example: Chullin 13b; 15b. 

BY, bi hlalap ba}ag aah debe ANY, avhlatabab directly not, butif done tt ts 
right, i. e. it ought not to be done, but if already done, it is 
acceptable and valid’. 

Examples: Mishna Berachoth II, 3. Terumoth I, 6; Talm. 
Berachoth 15a b. 

4. wb 93 tapes even if done, it is not accepted as valid. 

Examples: Berachoth 15a; Megilla 19b. 


1 Compare the phrase in the civil law: Fieri non debet, sed fac- 
tum valet. 


B. THE GEMARA EXPLAINING AND DISCUSSING 
THE MISHNA. 


Oat AR Ra Dy Ha haa te 


MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 
§ 16. 


The Gemara uses a great variety of modes in commenting 
the Mishna and discussing its contents. Generally, the com- 
ments are introduced by a query which is intended to call at- 
tention to the point that requires elucidation. This methoa of 
introducing a statement or explanation by queries is to some ex- 
tent already found in the Mishna itself, as ‘n° from what 
time on may weread....? Berachoth I, 1. 2; Taanith I, 1;..7y55 
how are benedictions to be recited..? Berachoth VI, 1; VII, 
3;...mD1....m22 with what...and with what...? Sabbath II, 1; 
IV, 1; VI, 15... jam whence is it derived...?.. IAMS... TADS 
which are...and which are...? B. Kamma II, 4; B. Metzia V, 1, 
and many other similar interrogative phrases. But in the 
Gemara this method is more commonly applied. 

The following is an outline of the different modes and 
phrases mostly used in the Gemara at the outset of its com- 
mentation and discussion on the Mishna. 


1. EXPLAINING WORDS AND PHRASES OF THE MISHNA. 
Santis 


Such explanations are mostly introduced by the question: 
ee ND what ts...? or, what means....? 

Examples: Berachoth 59a; Pesachim 2a; Kiddushin 29a. 

In answer to this query, the explanation is generally 2iven 
in the name of a certain Amora. Sometimes, two teachers dif- 
fer in the answer; f. ex. Berachoth 29a; Pesachim 2a. Where 
the schools of Babylonia and Palestine differ in the interpreta- 
tion, that difference is usually expressed by... 1O10N Non 


MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 199 


SIDS OM Zere (in Babylon) they explain..., but ¢here (in Pales- 
tine) they say...; or...1139N Nom Zere they explain,.. VO8 ’B 7), 
but a certain (Palestinian) Rabbi says....; fiex. R. Hashana 
30b, Sanhedrin 25a; B. Metzia 20a. Sometimes, however, 
Non refers to Suva in opposition to other Babylonian schools; 
f. ex. Pesachim 42b; B. Bathra 61a. 

Remark. Where the question ‘x1 is followed by... xpos af to 
say.. ? is it to say....? an anticipated explanation is to be rejected as 
wrong; f. ex, Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a. 


2. ASKING FOR THE MBANING OR CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE 
SENTENCE OR OF A STATEMENT IN THE MISHNA 


§ 18. 


a. “WAND ND what does he (the author of this Mishna) in- 
tend to say here? 

The answer to this question is generally introduced by: 
“ONpP 27 thus he says.... Example: Sabbath 41a; Taanith 27a. 

b. pow ost what does he let us hear? 

Examples: Sabbath 84b; Sanhedrin 46b. 

Remark. Different is the meaning of the question pow» 'Nd,when 
followed by....4, in which case it is to be translated by: What proves 
that....? f. ex. R. Hashana 21b; 22b. 


3. ASKING FOR THE OBJECT OF A SEEMINGLY INDIFFERENT OR 
SUPERFLUOUS STATEMENT. 


§ 19. 


a. snmsdsm ond for what practical purpose is this (state- 
ment)? 

Examples: R. Hashana 2a; Yebamoth 39a; Kethuboth 82a. 

b. 5 yowrpe os (abbr. 27D ss) What does he intend 
to let us hear? What does he want to teach us, here? 

The answer to the latter question is mostly introduced by 


...5’pp sm This he intends to teach us, that... 


Examples: Pesachim 89a; Sebachim 85b; Meilah 21a. 
ec. sapspsosp What is this to say? Why teach this? 


200 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


Example: Nazir 13a. 


4. INVESTIGATING THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF A 
CASE REFERRED TO 1N THE MISHNA. 


§ 20. 


a [poy ND. Of what case, of what circumstances do 
we treat here? 
Examples: Betza 2a; B. Metzia 12b; Gittin 37b. 


b. ‘27 9D°T (abbr. 7’m) How shall we imagine this case? 

Examples: Megilla 18a; Gittin 78a; B. Kamma 28b. 

Both of these two interrogative phrases are mostly follow- 
ed either by ...sp:9 77 do say..; ts tt to say...? anticipating an 
answer which is rejected at once; or by a dilemma...%$§....°§, 
if...? and tf...? presenting two anticipated alternatives to either 
of which the law under consideration cannot well refer. 

The answer to such questions is introduced either by x57 
[Ppoy ‘sma Here we treat of the case...., or by... NOY x5, 
no (1. €. not as you anticipated, but) xecessarily..... (we have to 
imagine the case under the circumstances that...), or by.... 
obiy>, owever, still (i. e. notwithstanding your objection) 7 


This last phrase is especially used when one of the altern- 
atives is defended against the objection made to it. 


5. INVESTIGATING THE BIBLICAL SOURCE OF A LAW LAID DOWN 
IN THE MISHNA. 
S21; 
The question introducing such an investigation is either: 
75 s30, contr. 7539 (abbr. 53) Whence do we have this? 
Example: Kidd. 14b; 22b and very often. 
Or °5° 935 NID, contr. 95 *3nID (abbr. yD) Whence 
ure these words (laws)? 
Examples: Berachoth 30b; 35a a. v. o. 


Both of these questions correspond to the Mishnic 730, 
whence is it derived? 


MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 201 


Correctly the question 531 is applied where the source of 
only one single point of the law is to be investigated, while 
mr is used where several points or provisions are under 
consideration. But this distinction is not always strictly re- 
garded. 

In answer to this question either an Amora is quoted who 
points to the source, by the phrase: N4p 7DN7 for Scripture 
says...., or reference is made to a Baraitha in which the law 
in question is artificially derived from a biblical passage. This 
reference is introduced by: m7 for the Rabbis have taught.. 

Remark 1. Instead of answering the question of ban, the Gema- 
ra sometimes repeats the same question with astonishment: 12590, as 
if tosay, How can you ask such a question, since the source of the 
law under consideration is obvious enough from a plain biblical pas- 
sage? The original question is then set forth in a modified form by the 
phrase: }ONP 1377 fIN We mean tosay (ask) thus:...;f. ex. Megilla 2a; 
Sanhedrin 68b; Sebachim 89a. 

Remark 2. In answering the question of bon, the Amoraim often 
differ, one deriving the law from this, and another from another pas- 
sage. After having investigated the merits of their different deriva- 
tions, the Gemara sometimes adds another biblical basis given by a 
Tana in a Baraitha. In this case, the phrase is used ; ab any xeon 
xn but a Tana derives it from this passage... 

Example: Betza 15b; Chagiga 9a; Kiddushin 4b; see Rashi o the 
first mentioned passage. 


6. INVESTIGATING THE REASON OR THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE 
oF A LAW. 


§ 22. 


Such an investigation is generally introduced by the query 
syn oND (abbr. 1p) What is the reason? 

Examples: Berachoth 33a; R. Hashana 32b; Megilla 24a; 
B. Metzia 38a. 

This query is especially made in regard to such anonymous 
Mishna paragraphs where the law contained therein is evi- 
dently not based on scriptural grounds, but merely on a rabbin- 


202 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


ical institution or principle. But in regard to a Mishna con- 
taining a difference of opinion, the question:... "TRDypD OND 
‘What is the reason of the dissenting Rabbi A?” is often also 
answered by a reference to a biblical passage; f. ex. Berachoth 
15a. 

Remark 1. Exceptionally the question 1» is found in Moed 
Katon 19a in the sense of 9" roy d ‘in what respect?’ See Rashi on 
that passage. . 

Remark 2. Where the reason of one of two cases or one of two 
opinions contained in a Mishna paragraph is clear enough, but not the 
other, the query is usually set forth in the following phrase: 

2NOYO ND... NON... DW... dDdwA 

It is all right (in the one case)...., there it is on account Of eee) DUE 
in the case of... what is there the reason? 

Examples: Berachoth 33b; 52b; Yebamoth 41b. 

Remark 38. Sometimes, both questions »'» and pm) are made. 
In this case the former asks for the underlying principle, and the lat- 
ter for the biblical basis of that principle; for. ex. Sabbath 24b. The 
reversed order is found in Betza 15b; see Rashi on that passage. 


7. INVESTIGATING THE GENERAL BASIS OF THE PARTICULARS 
OF A LAW. 


§ 23. 


The Mishna sometimes starts with the particulars of a law 
without having stated the principal law to which those partic- 
ulars refer. In this case the Gemara asks: 

JN PT I8P NIT NIN Where (on what basis) does the 
author of this Mishna stand, that he here teaches....? i. e. to 
what general law does he refer? or where is the principal law 
of these particulars? 

Examples: Berachoth 2a; Taanith 2a; see also Shebuoth 
ATC by 

The answer 1s introduced by the phrase: ‘ND onn ‘he 
refers to the passage there”.... (in which the required basis is 
stated). 


MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 203 


8. INVESTIGATING THE AUTHORSHIP OF AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 
§ 24. 


The Gemara often endeavors to trace an anonymous Mish- 
na to its author, 1. e. to find out whether or not that anony- 
mous Mishna representsthe opinion of a certain Tana expressed 
elsewhere in another Mishna or in a Baraitha. Such an 
investigation is introduced by one of the following phrases. 

a. ...83N js Who is that Tana (author)?..., Berachoth 
40a; Yoma 14a; Megilla 19b. 

hb. ... 1093p 13D or...%31 jn Whose Opinion represents 
our Mishna?... B. Kamma 38a; Gittin 10a; Nedarim 87a. 

ce. pom/b 3 2399 Nm Whose opinion is this? It is that of 
Rabbi A... B. Metzia 40b. 

d. snp N57 ymeasno Our Mishna does not represent the 
opinion of.... B. Kamma 32a. 


Remark 1. Where the investigation is merely problematical with 
a negative result, it is generally preceded by xd (or ND°5), is it to 
say...? The answer is then usually: ...xdO°n yar, you may even say... 
(our Mishna agrees with the opinion of that Tana); as: jn‘2n0 xp 
SON NNT x55, Is it to say that our Mishna does not represent the 
opinion of that certain Rabbi in the Baraitha ? B. Kamma 30a; B. 
Metzia 2b; Kiddushin 52b. Sometimes, it is also phrased: yn xd 
xonp..'95 (x54) Is it to say,that that which is taught here anonymously 
does (or does not) agree with the view of that Rabbi? Berachoth 2ob; 
Betza 27b; Bechoroth 28a. 

Remark 2. Also where the Mishna records a dissenting opinion 
of the sages collectively by a DIX OWI, the Gemara often investig- 
ates OMIN yND, Who is the representative of these sages ? f. ex. Giitin 
22a; B. Metzia 60b; Sanhedrin 66a. 


9. INVESTIGATING THE FORCE OF A COMPREHENSIVE OR A LIMITING 
TERM. 
A, COMPREHENSIVE TERMS, 
See 
As stated above chapter I, 7. 8, the Mishna often intro- 


204 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY. 


duces the provisions of law by general and comprehensive 
terms, as mp 555 ,552n mr jon .55 which terms are assumed 
to imply other cases in addition to those expressly mentioned. 
Investigating the force of such a comprehensive term, the Ge- 
mara usually asks: °xo "MNS What is this to include? What 
is this term to add? | 

Examples: Pesachim 8a; Chagiga 2a; Gittin 19a. See 
Erubin 2a—3b. ; 

B. Limiting Terms. 
§ 26. 


Where the Mishna is making use of a limiting term (see 
above I. 9.10), the question of the Gemara is: oxo  wiynd 
What is this to exclude? 

Examples: Pesechim 76b; Kiddushin 3a; B. Kamma 13b. 


10. INVESTIGATING THE REFERENCE OF A CERTAIN STATEMENT 
IN THE MISHNA. 


§ 27. 


After having laid down certain provisions of the law, the 
Mishna sometimes adds either a modification or a dissenting 
opinion without clearly stating to which of the preced- 
ing provisions this addition refers. Investigating such a 
case the Gemara usually asks: SN Zo which 7? 1. e. to which 
of the preceding provisions or cases does this addition refer ? 
This question is generally followed by:....so°" shall J say.... 
(it refers to the latter or to the former case)? 


Examples: Berachoth 34b; Kiddushin 46a; Sanhedrin 79a. 
11. QUALIFYING A PROVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
§ 28. 
Without an introductory question, the Gemara often quali- 


fies a provision of the Mishna by limiting its application to 
certain circumstances. The phrases used for this purpose are: 


a. d....5ay....e5s aay s> they only taught this in reference 


MODES OF TREATING AN ANONYMOUS MISHNA. 205 


to.... (a case under that certain circumstance), /u¢.. (under 
the different circumstance of...) zo¢. 

Examples: Berachoth 42b; Succah 32a; B. Kamma 28a. 

b. N7....2ONe.- SDTITI only....but... not. 

Examples: Yebamoth 98b; B. Bathra 146a; Aboda Zara 
TAb. 

c. The shortest phrase for this purpose is: ....W SIM 
provided thai... 

Examples: Sabbath 53a; B. Metzia lla; Maccoth 6a. 

Remark. The phrase RS su xb corresponds to the Mishnic 
phrase O° \08 O37 D3 or (NN. 


12. EXTENDING A PROVISION OF THE MISHNA. 
§ 29. 


Opposite to the preceding case, the Gemara often also ex- 
tends the effect of a provision above the limits or circumstan- 
ces indicated in the Mishna. The usual phrase for such an ex- 
tension is:.... SDN NON won....e> zl strictly.. (to the circum- 
stance stated in the Mishna refers this law) du even... 


Examples: Berachoth 53b; Kethuboth 23a; B. Metzia 34a. 


Remark. This phrase introducing an extension of the law is 
often shortened to the simple word:... DN or Say and even...3f. i. 
B. Metzia 22b; 26b; Aboda Zara 4la. 


13. MAKING CONCLUSIONS AND DEDUCTIONS FROM THE MISHNA. 
§ 30. 


A conclusion or deduction made eitber from the contents 
or from the wording of the Mishna is termed xpys (B. Metzia 
8a) or NPT (Kethuboth 31b). Such conclusions at the outset of 
the Gemara form generally the basis of a subsequent question 
and are introduced by one of the following technical terms and 
phrases: 

a. .... NSN hence..., consequently..., f. ex. Yoma 14b; 
Betza 9b; B. Metzia 37a. 


206 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


b. ...538...7 Spy the reason (of the decision given in this 
Mishna) is...., but... (under different circumstances the decision 
must be different) ; f ex. Pesachim 9a ; B. Kamma 47b; B. 
Metzia 18a; 25a. 

Remark. This latter phrase is especially used where a conclusion 
is made from a positive statement to the negative, or vice versa. Such 
conclusions are sometimes also phrased: ~b.. (NT) PN... (in this case) 
yes, but... (in the opposite case) not; f. ex Berachoth 17b; Nazir 34b; 
Chullin 18a. 

c. ... 3D pow (abbr. py) Zear from thts, conclude from 
this that... f. ex. Berachoth 13a. Interrogatively it is phrased 
ma myppw do you not conclude from this...? Yoma 37b; San- 
hedrin 71a; B. Metzia 97b. 

Remark. 1)“w is mostly used in deductions by which a legal prin- 
ciple is finally to be established. At the end of an argument the phra- 
se "yw expresses the acceptance of the preceding conclusions as 
proved and correct, and is then to be translated by: you may hear it 
herefrom, it is proved herefrom. 

d_....55>2 in this is implied that.., from this follows that... 
f. ex Pesachim 45a, Sanhedrin 66a. This term of inference is 
often preceded by:... °3np72 since the Mishna teaches.., as : 
G5... np since he teaches...., it follows....; f ex. Bera- 
choth 43a, B. Kamma 2a; Or... 9731...°Ip x55... “MPI since 
he teaches....and not...., it follows...; f. ex. Kethuboth 90a. 

e. .... MAUDIS MAN? this tells, this teaches that... This 
phrase introduces deductions ofa general principle froma spe- 
cial case in the Mishna, f. ex. Berachoth 20b; Rosh Hashana 
22a; B. Kamma 35b. 


CHAPTER III. 
THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 


Another kind of questions with which the Gemara intro- 
duces its comments onthe Mishna are those of astonishment 
andsurprise at finding therein either an incongruity or an in- 
consistency, a superfluity or an omission, or another difficulty. 
The following are the different modes in which questions and 
objections of this kind are set forth and answered. 


1. FINDING AN INCONGRUITY OF EXPRESSIONS. 
§ 31. 


A. INCONGRUITY IN ONE AND THE SAME MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 


.. DDD 1...ammp “Why begin with... (this term or 
expression) and then end with...(a different one)?” | 

Example: mans. oD) 332 MND B. Kamma 27a. Other 
examples: Moed Katon 11b, B. Bathra 17b. 

The answer is usually....939977....13° 2¢ 2s chis...2¢ ts the same; 
i. e. both expressions are identical, mean the same thing. 


B. INCONGRUITY OF EXPRESSIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE 
_ MiSHNA. 


307 OMG NW ONDT ... SIT NOT NW ND (abbr. wr) 
“Why is the Mishna using here.... (this expression), and there.. 
(a ditferent one)?” 

Examples: Sabbath 2b; Kiddushin 2a; Shebuoth 5a. 

Remark. The answer to this question is sometimes; NANI NINA 
Sat gman on binp ‘‘by that change of expression it was intended 
to add something new and unexpected here as Well as there”: f. ex. 
Kidd. 59b. 


2, FINDING A TAUTOLOGY IN THE MISHNA. 
§ 32. 


The technical phrase used in the objection to a tautology is: 


208 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


13.19 “Is not.... (this expression or case) the same as... 
(that other one)?”; why then this repetition? 

Examples: Rosh Hashana 23b; B. Kamma 17b; Shebu- 
buoth 12b. 


8. OBJECTING TO THE ORDER OF THE STATED CASES. 
§ 33. 


suena... Nw... NIT NIwW ND Why does the Mish- 
na just teach the case of.... first, instead of teaching that 
other case of...first? 

Examples: Berachoth 2a; B. Bathra 108a; Bechoroth 13a. 


4. OBJECTING TO A CERTAIN MODE OF EXPRESSION. 
§ 34. 


a. ...09me>.... 99m%p5 m5 m5 Why does the author of the 
Mishna use the expression...., instead of using.... (that other 
expression)? 

Examples: Sabbath 90b; B. Metzia 2a; B. Bathra 98b. — 

b. ...9595....°3T NPN IND What does he intend to teach 
in using this expression, instead of....? 

Examples: Yebamoth 84a; Kiddushin 69a. 

Remark. The answer to such an objection is often: 35x xnbp 
Sinn mnie (In using this expression) he lets us hear something by 
the way, namely... ; f. ex. Berachoth 2a. 

5. OBJECTING TO A CERTAIN LIMITATION OF A PROVISION IN 
THE MISHNA. 


§ 35. 


102 (ODN... NN OND Why just teaching....since the law 
applies also to....? 
Examples: Pesachim 50b; Gittin 34b; B. Bathra 59b. | 
6. FINDING AN OMISSION OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TWO CASES. 
§ 36. 


The objection to such an omission is generally phrased in 
the following way; 


THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 209 


NIU 891..-8307 NNT PDD NP 
SND... NIN. NDIWA 
‘The Mishna decides here....without distinguishing be- 
tween....and...;it is right... (concerning the one case), but why 
should the law apply also to....(the other case)?” 
Examples: Succah 29b; Gittin 10b; Sanhedrin 18b. 


7. FINDING AN EXPRESSION TO BE INCORRECT OR TOO INDEFINITE. 
Seat 


yt ND2D (abbr. 3’’D) Does this enter your mind? 1. e.,do 
you indeed mean to say this? 
Examples; Yoma 67b; Pesachim 42b; Kiddushin 29a. 
Tbe corrected version is then usually introduced by: x5>x 
~ND°S but rather say.... 


8. FINDING A TERM OR PROVISION TO BE OUT OF PLACE. 
§ 38. 


mpw “D7 jk Who mentioned the name of this? i. e. what 
has this to do here? how is this to be mentioned in this con- 
nection? 

Examples. Sabbath 57a, Pesachim 8b, Nazir 4a. 

The answer to this question is generally introduced by the 
phrase: TaNP som thus he means to say, or by: S7DMmD “ION 
‘3Np 2371 something is omitted here which must be supplied 
by construction, namely.... 


9, FINDING A CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE MISHNA UNNECESSARY, 
BEING TOO PLAIN AND OBVIOUS TO BE EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, 


8 39. 


nows ‘this is too plain!” i.e, why make this provision 
for a case which is so plain? why state that which is a mat- 
ter of course? 

Examples: Berachoth 20b; 47b; Pesachim 21b; Megilla 25a. 

The full phrase of this elliptical expression is 58S NwwD 


210 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


ssi it is too plain, why then expressly say (teach) it? f. ex. 
Nedarim 16a. 

In answer to this objection, the Gemara generally tries to 
show that under certain circumstances the provision under consi- 
deration is not as plain and self-evident as it appears to be ; or 
that it was needed in order to prevent some possible misunder- 
standing inthe application of the general law. Such an answer 
is mostly phrased either: 

eves (TAD) sos Noms NO it is not so (plain), as it is needed 
for the case... ;0r:... RIYIN NYT NP2D Fywss it was necessary 
to state this, since you might have misunderstood me to say...; 
or: MDP... ROT im what you might have supposed is that....; 
therefore the author informs us (of this provision). 


Remark. Different from this meaning of the word nyo we, as an 
elliptical expression of astonishment and objection is that, when the 
word precedes a propounded question of problem, where two cases 
are set forth one of which is plain and obvious enough, but not the 
other. Insuch a connection the word is simply a statement of self- 
evidence, and is to be translated by: this case isclear and plain, but 
(my question concerns that other case); f. ex. Berachoth 12a; B. Kamma 
8b; Kiddushiu 8b. This kind of xo wh is generally explained in Rashi’s 
commentary by the remark ~xnj\n'22 ‘‘in calmness” i. e. to be read here 
not as a question but in a calm manner as a plain statement, while the 
other kind of xO°wHd is explained by AMON “in astonishment”. Asa 
simple statement preceding a question of doubt and problem, the term 
NtOwH is sometimes supplied in the Talmud by the word 5 ‘“‘this case 
is plain to me”; f. ex. Sabbath 3b; Megillah 3b. 


10. FINDING AN UNNECESSARY REPETITION OF THESAME PROVISION 
ALREADY STATED ELSEWHERE. 


§ 40. 


The question objecting to such a repetition is phrased: 

a. (NID SMT) NIN 2p ss What does he inform us 
here, since I have already once before been informed thereof in 
another passage of the Mishna? 


MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Yaa: 


the divergence of opinions in this case is in full accordance 
with the opposite Views or principles expressed elsewhere by 
the same teachers. ‘The phrases used in showing such consist- 
ency of opinion in both of the contesting Amoraim are: 


a. impo iss; they go according to their principles, 
i, e., they differ, each following his own principle. 

Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. 

b. ....mopw> ‘anda; mryod x omdp Amora A follows 
his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle.... 

Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. 


Remark. The phrase Woppd Stx) is used where reference is 
made to another dispute between the same teachers, while mpypd 'S 
refers to a principle laid down by either of the two teachers independ” 
ently from each other. 


6. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
§ 78. 


By the introductory phrase: pow sn (abbr. wn) Come 
and hear, OY: FIDNIN Or: IBN @ certain teacher or they (the 
members of the academy) odjected (by appealing to a higher au- 
thority), a Mishna or a Baraitha is referred to in suport 
(y9D or NMypp)of the opinion of one, and as a refutation (NAN) 
of that of the other of the contesting Amoraim. A discussion 
then usually follows with the object of rejecting the support 
or repelling the attack. The result of that discussion is ei- 
ther that the question at issue remains undecided, or it is decided 
against one and in favor of the other ofthecontesting Amoraim. 
The usual phrase in the latter case is: 

(/2ndpa mnn> snzdom) | ynavn 2's oondat xnsin “Is 
this not a refutation of the opinion of Amora A? It is a refu- 
tation! And the decision is according to the vpinion of Amora B.”’ 

Examples: Sanhedrin 27a; B. Metzia 21b-22b; Chullin 
28a. Examples of not distinctly decided discussions: Pesachim 
30b-31b; B. Kamma 56b-57b; B. Metzia 38b. 


212 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


or 54% ‘all the mentioned cases are necessary”, generally at- 
tempts to show that with each of the stated cases a peculiar 
circumstance is connected on account of which the analogy 
with the other case might have been objected to, hence the ex- 
press statement of all cases. The phraseology of this answer is 
mostly: 2p .. NDON Tn... Namows for if the author had 
only taught... (that other case) I might have supposed....; the- 
refore he lets us hear this. | 


Remark. The question ‘“‘why are all these cases needed?” is some- 
times omitted and the Gemare starts with the explanation: “3°7y) it 
was necessary (to state all these cases), since...;f. ex. Sabbath 122a; 
Kiddushin 50b; B. Kamma 382b. 


12. FINDING ONE OF TWO CASES SUPERFLUOUS, SINCE @ fortiori 
IMPLIED IN THE OTHER. 
§ 42. 

The question based on the argument @ fortiord is generally 
phrased: (j>w 95 85) s*ysd...(NdM) ...0DN ...(O00 md) sAwn 
if (there in the one case) you say... (that the decision 
is...) Can it here (in our case) be questionable ? 1. e., 1s it not 
here the more so, why then state the other case? 

Examples: Rosh Hashana 32b; Pesachim 55b; Yebamoth 
30a; Shebuoth 32b. 


Remark. The answer to this objection is sometimes, that the 
Mishna intended to arrange cases in a climax (} NY 5, Rosh Hashana 
32b), or in an anticlimax (}t sp Jy priv, Kethuboth 58a), Concern - 
ing these two phrases see above § 13 and § 14. 


138. FINDING AN OMISSION OF CASES WHERE THE MISHNA EX- 
PRESSLY LIMITS THEIR NUMBER. 


§ 43. 
a. ...993 9355 (or "3m33) should not the author also have 


added the case of....? 
Examples: B. Metzia 55a; Yebamoth 53a; Zebachim 49b. 


THE GEMARA CRITICISING THE MISHNA. 213 


b. .... NDS NT (N99) NO im are there not more cases? 
but behold. there is the case of.... (which is not mentioned). 
Examples: Gittin 9b; 86a; Chullin 42a; Menachoth 74b. 


14. FINDING A GENERAL RULE OF LAW NoT CoVER G ALLCASES. 
§ 44, 


It NIT N5O5D; Is this a general rule? behold the case 
of... (to which it does not apply.) 
Examples: Kiddushin 34a; 66b; Temurah 14a; Chullin 59a. 


15. FINDING A DECISION OF THE MISHNA NOT IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE. 


§ 45. 


we NMI ONDS or NONI Why so ? How isthis? Is this not 
against the principle of... ? , 
Examples: Berachoth 47b; Betza 31b; B. Metzia 94a. 


Remark. The question "XN is sometimes omitted, and must be 
supplied, f. ex. in B. Metzia 99a; Gittin 22b. 


16. FINDING A DIFFERENT DECISION REGARDING TWO CASES 
WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED ALIKE. 
§ 46. 

NDID NSW ND) RW Now ons What difference is there 
between the former and the latter case? i. e., since the two 
cases mentioned in the Mishna are seemingly alike, why does 
the decision in the one case differ from that in the other? 

Examples: B. Metzia 65b; B. Bathra 20a; Kiddushin 64a. 


17. FINDING AN INCONSISTENCY OF PRINCIPLES IN ONE AND THE 
SAME MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 


§ 47. 
The phraseology mostly used in such objection of inconsist- 
ency is: : 
te BOON... DIDNT... NOON... FON, NWP NBW NT is this 
not self-contradictory ? you say...hence.... and then you say.... 
hence...? 1. e., the underlying principle or the consequence of 
one part of this Mishna contradicts that of the other part. 


232— TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


The answer having been given, question 1 is again direct- 
ed to B: why does he not explain as A? This question is then 
treated in a similar way as the former. 

Examples: Gittin l7a; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 


8. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE REASON OF A LAW. 
§ 75. 


The practical consequence of adopting either of the two 
reasons assigned to the law by the contesting Amoraim is in- 
vestigated by asking: 

3S ND what is the difference between them? i. e., in 
what respect does it make a difference in the application of the 
law, whether this or the other reason be assigned to it? 

The answer is always introduced by the phrase: wo» 
i393 there is (it makes) a difference concerning.... 

Examples: Gittin 2b; B. Metzia 15b; Sanhedrin 24b. 


4. INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
OF OPINION. 


8 76. 


Where the difference between the contesting Amoraim in- 
volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the 
question : Pr Piel ‘Noa in what do they differ? Or, What is 
the point of difference ? On what general principle do they 
disagree ? 

Examples: Pesachimn 63b; Gittin 34a; B. Metzia 15b. 

Remark. Before defining the difference, sometimes the points 
are stated in which both sides agree, and which therefore ure exclud- 
ed from the discussion. This is usually done in the following phrase: 
wD Le 7°55 x5 (by 955)... 80 59 As regards....they (both of 
the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concerning.... 

Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 21b. 

5. SHOWING CONSISTENCY OF OPINIONS IN BOTH OF THE 

CONTESTING TEACHERS, 


SHU, 
After having stated the difference, the Gemara shows that 


TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 229 

Remark 1. This objection is mostly removed by showing that 
the Memra contains something in addition to the Mishna. 

Remark 2. The question by ‘OD OND is not raised where the opinion 
of the Memra is not expressly but merely impliedly contained in the 
Mishna. In this case the Mishna is referred to just to corroborate the 
Memra by the phrase §3°9N ‘D) }N AN we have also a Mishna to 
the same effect; f. ex. Berachoth 27a; Yoma 26b; Aboda Zara 8a. 


4, CORROBORATING THE MEMRA BY A BARAITHA. 
§ 69. 


Such a corroborating Baraitha is generally introduced by 
the phrase: 935 °93 NIN (abbr. 73N) a Baraitha, too, teaches 
thus; or, we have also a Baraitha to the same effect. 

Examples: Berachoth 9b, Taanith 10a; Sanhedrin 23a. 

Remark. The question : ‘‘Why does the Amora need to teach 
that which is already stated in the Raraitha ?” is never raised, since 
the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but nut every Ba- 
raitha, 


5, CORROBORAITING THE MEMRA BY ONE OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. 
Sen: 

Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one 
which is introduced by ...°%93 “FAN we have also another Mem- 
ra tothe same effect. Such is especially the case where the 
Memra of a Babylonian Amora is supported by one of a Pa- 
lestinian authority. 


Examples: Chagiga 24a; Gittin 13b; Sanhedrin 29a. 
6. A DIFFERENT REPORT. 
§ 71. 


After a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, 
a different report ("N73 SDN some say,some report....) is some- 
times introduced in which the Amora referred to just expresses 
the opposite opinion. ‘The discussion then turns the tables, so 


ys 


CHAPTER IV. 


TREATMENT OF A MISHNA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
ENCE OF OPINION. 


1. ASKING FOR THE REASON OF THE DISSENTING TEACHER. 
§ 50. 


IT NOpY wy what is the reason of Rabbi.... (the dis- 
senting teacher)? 

The answer is usually followed by the further question 
NOP NIM and the first anonymous teacher? or 20 and our 
other teachers? i. e., what have they to say against this reason? 


Examples: Berachoth lda; 44a; R. Hashana 22a; B. 
Kamma 23b. 


2. ASKING FOR A COUNTER-ARGUMENT, 
Sake 


The Mishna sometimes records an argument of one of the 
dissenting teachers against his opponent which is neither ac- 
cepted nor refuted by the latter. In this case, the Gemara 
usnally asks for the probable counter-argument of that oppon- 
ent, in the following way: 

2(2) 13) 99 (8) "9D WONp EY Very well did Rabbi 
A argue against Rabbi B, What then had the latter to say? 

Examples: R. Hoshana 26a; Megilla 27b; Kiddushin 61a. 


3. FINDING TWO OF SEVERAL OPINIONS TO BE IDENTICAL. 
Spo 


After having laid down an opinion concerning a case, the 
Mishna sometimes adds two dissenting opinions,one of which 
does not at all seem to differ from that which had been laid 
down first. The Gemara then usually asks: 

SOP NIN WT ....’9 (or oD5N) Is not the opinion of R. 
So and So (or of the sages) identical with that of the first men- 
tioned teacher? 


DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN A MISHNA. 217 


Examples: Berachoth 30a; Sanhedrin 15b; Aboda Zara 7b. 
The answer to this question is generally...15393 NS 
there isa difference between them concerning.... 


4, INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
OF OPINION. 


§ 53. 


SSO) een aoD) (Nam Ma5D.p ss3 In what (principle) 
do they differ? R. A holds... and R. B holds.... 


Examples: Succah 16a; Betza 26a; Gittin 64b. 


Remark. Where such an investigation is problematic only, it is 
introduced by: .,.730 7....920 WOT Wap xna xo is it to say, 
that they differ concerning the principle of...., so that one holds that 
..., and the other holds that....2? The answer is then generally: sb 
8 oy a spby sot No, both of them agree concerning this principle, 
but they differ concerning another principle, namely.... 

Examples: Pesachim 46b; Nazir 62b; Sanhedrin 23a. 


5, LIMITING THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISSENT- 
ING ‘l‘EACHERS. 


§ 54, 
0-997 1DT.--95N...3 Mpiona the difference concerns 
only...., but regarding.... all agree that.... 


Examples: Berachoth 41a, Betza 9a, B. Kamma 6la. 


Remark. Where such a limitation of the difference between Ta- 
naim is to offer a basis for a subsequent question, it is usually phrased 
as follows: 


oo Mba de Sp 5 IND Ty so far only they differ that... ., 
but concerning....both of them agree that...etc. 
Examples: Sabbath 132a; Yebamoth 50b; B. Metzia 28b. 


6. INQUIRING WHY THE DISSENT OF THE TEACHERS IN ONE CASE 
DOES NOT EXTEND ALSO TO THE OTHER. 


§ 55. 
SPODT NBO wD POD NOT Nw NOY OND 
What difference is between the former and this case, that 


NJ 


228 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


2. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE COLLIDING WITH A MISHNA OR 
A BARAITHA, 


§ 67. 


The objection is raised against the author of the Memra 
that the latter isin conflict with an undisputed Mishna or Ba- 
raitha, the authority of which is superior to that of an Amora. 
Such an objection is generally introduced either by the pnrase 
‘oom they (i. e. the members of the academy) refuted it, they 
raised a point of contradiction from the higher authority of a 
Mishna or Baraitha, or 7.3.4 .s he raised against this a point 
of contradiction from a higher authority, or 93355 39m a cer- 
tain teacher refuted this, or simply by jan) but are we not 
taught in the Mishna ? ‘ynmi are we not taught in the Ba- 
raitha....(differently) ? 

Examples: Berachoth 10b; Rosh Hashana 6b; B. Metzia 10a. 

Remark. Such an objection or refutation from a higher autho- 
rity is termed “nan. The argument of the objection often closes 
with the phrase wba4 xnavn this is a refutation of that Amora; or 
xnayn ?°ndpt xnavn is this not a refutation of that Amora? Itisa 
refutation! (i. e., the point of refutation is well taken). Mostly how- 
ever the objection is removed by showing that the Mishna or Baraitha 
referred to treats of a different case or different circumstances, and such 
a defense is introduced by the phrase: ...‘5 a 198 that Amora might 
say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berach: th 84a; B, 
Kamma 14a. 


3. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE SUPERFLUOUS. 
§ 68. 


The Memra is shown to be unnecessary, since the same 
opinion which the Amora expresses therein is already stated 
in a Mishna. This objection is phrased: sy5n 2p ss what 
does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been 
taught that in the following Mishna..? 

Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, B. Kamma 85b. 


ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 241 - 


Mishna and the Baraitha, it is termed s°p14 (of the verb ‘5 
to cast, to throw against, to bring in opposition) setting 
authority against authority, bringing authorities in opposition 
to each other. Such a question of objection or contradiction 
is generally introduced by the phrase ;...‘D 5 sop a certain 
teacher asked the following question of contradiction between 
two passages....; or by ;...2ngaai T raise against this the ques- 
tion of a conflict of authorities, i. e., I find this Mishna to be 
in conflict with the following passage in an other Mishna or in 
a Baraitha.... Omitting this introductory phrase, such a 
question is often set forth simply by: ...j3nmi but are we not 
taught in (another) Mishna...? 93mm are we not taught in 
a Braitha...? (See above § 49) 

b. smavn (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word Fawn 
an answer, gainsaying, objection, refutation) signifies an ob- 
jection raised against an Amora as being in conflict with the 
superior authority of a statement in a Mishna or Baraitha, It 
is generally introduced by 939155 39m a certain teacher raised 
the following objection from a higher authority...; or MN 
he objected to him from a higher authority; or: sa». they 
(the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection 
(See above § 67) 


The answer to such a point of objection is termed _o43°y 
a difference or distinction, in as much as it mostly attempts to 
remove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, 
seeiningly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different 
cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced 
by :...89M ‘Nw here isa different case, or by: ....O0M...-jND 
here... there..., OF ....Nm ....N$7 in this case..., but in the other 
case...., or by: ....j>DY %NDS Non here we treat of the 
special case that..... / 


Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a 
contradiction ase often very strained, and are ir this case sometimes 
characterized by the Talmud itself as xD'nT NYDW a forced or 
strained answer, f. ex.: B. Kamma 43a. ; 106a.; Kethuboth 42b. 


CHAPTER V. 
THE GEMARA QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED 
WORKS. 


1. TERMS USED IN REFERRING TO THE MISHNA. 
Saou: 


In contradistinction to the extraneous Mishna or Baraitha, 
also called NMv3ND, the authorized Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha- 
nasi is termed PIVING or wNHsww our Mishna, and the author of 
a teaching contained in a paragraph of this Mishna, is desig- 
nated as [TT NIN our teacher, in contradistinction to S43 NIN 
the teacher in the Baraitha; f. ex. Moed Katon 17b; B. K. 61a. 

Quotations from the Mishna are introduced by: 

a. jin (contraction of j33 %3n we learn, study) we are taught 
(in a Mishna). 

b. DN IN we are taught there. This phrase is mostly 
used when a Mishua belonging to another Masechta is to be 
quoted; f. ex. Yoma 2a; B. Metzia 9b. Exceptionally, how- 
ever, it refers also to a passage in the same Masechta; f. ex. 
Pesachim 4b; Maccoth 16a. 

Cc. NIN (=1WIY) we have learned, we have been taught 
in a Mishna (rarely referring also to a Baraitha). 

This term is used only in certain phrases as y3°3M 2p ta 
What does he inform us here, since we have already been taught 
thereof in that Mishna? f. ex. Berachoth 50a, 0r N39IF 393 JIN AN 
we have also a Mishna to the same effect, f. ex. Berachoth 27a. 


2. TERMS USED IN QUOTING THE TOSEPHTA AND BARAITHA. 
§ 60. 
a. NIN one has taught, without adding any subject, mostly 


quotes a passage from the Tosephta, f. ex. Pesachim 53b; B. 
Metzia 28a. 


b. jaan (abbr. 9"n) our Rabbis taught, refers to a 
well known Baraitha, especially to passages from the Mechilta, 
Siphra and Siphre. 


QUOTING THE MISHNA AND KINDRED WORKS. 221 


C. S5M 77 is a teaching, refers to a Baraitha in general. 


Remark. Two.or more Baraithoth contradicting each other are 
generally introduced by:....JW& NUM... TVN NIN. NIT IN in one Ba- 
raitha it is taught...; in the other.... and again in another....; f. ex. 
Maccoth 7b. 


3. DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF SUCH QUOTATIONS. 
§ 61. 


1, q3M or on jin, at the outset of the Gemara, intro- 
duces another Mishna which directly or indirectly has some 
bearing upon the passage of the Mishna under consideration;or 
it ig intended to use the latter as an argument in a discussion on 
the quoted Mishna. | 

Examples: Sabbath 2a; Pesachim 11b: B. Metzia 9b. 


Remark, jn) at the outset of the Gemara as well as under a dis- 
cussion in the same, raises a question of contradiction or incongruity 
from the cited Mishna 3 }j3n75 or jn) OF pan RS) %9 adduces a support 
from that Mishna. 

2. syn, at the outset of the Gemara, usually introduces a 
brief quotation from the Tosephta explaining or qualifying a 
certain point in the Mishna under consideration. 

Examples: Berachoth 50b; Yoma 19a; B. Metzia 28a. 

8. wrgn, atthe outset of the Gemara, introduces a pas- 
sage from a Baraitha in which a difference of opinion mentioned 
in the Mishna is more fully set forth with the addition of some 
arguments. 

Examples: Berachoth 12b; Pesachim 27b; Maccoth 7b. 

Remark 1. s9nM) raises a question of contradiction from that 
Baraitha.! Sn) or NNT or NINID refers to the Baraitha as an ar- 





1 Exceptionally, N°3Mn) is sometimes used not as a question of 
contradiction, but as an argument in support of astatement, in the 
sense of x°3n). In this case, Rashi in his commentary generally re- 
marks: NXM\M3 “in calmness”, or NMYy"D ‘‘a support”, i. e., the phrase 
xvonn) is here not a question, but a calm statement in support of the 
preceding; f. ex. Moed Katon 19b in the first line; Gittin 74b; Kidd. 60b. 


A 
240 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


same question. Great ingenuity is in this respect displayed by some of 
the teachers, especially by the rivaling contemporaries Abaye and 
Raba, in showing that a question already answered by the other tea- 
cher might also have been answered in a different way; f. ex., Pesa- 
chim 5b; Kiddushin 5a; B. Metzia 52a. 

Remark 2. The answer to a question or an objection is often re- 
futed, and a new answer is then offered either by the refuter, or by 
another. In this case, the new answer is generally introduced by nde 
‘08, the word xbx but indicating that the point of refutation 
against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; 
Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 81a. 

Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept- 
ance of the former is indicated either by the phrase 9)bp5 NMmnyD xby 
but more correct is the answer of the first teacher (f. ex. Taanith 4b; 
Chullin 117%a), or in case that answer had been given anonymously, by 
the phrase yap yp IWID KXMNDd xby more correct is as we answered 
at first (f. ex. Pesachim 17b; Maccoth 2b; B. Metzia 3a). 

Remark 3. In questions of investigation as well as of objection, 
the questioner sometimes anticipates an answer which he shows to be 
inadmissible. Such anticipation (termed in rhetoric prolepsis) in 
questions of investigation is introduced by:... xp Sy is it to BAYavet Le 
ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec- 
tion it is introduced by:...x»°p 5) and if you will say ( answer)..., f. ex. 
Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 8b; Gittin 8b. On the other hand, where in 
giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is 
to be removed, it is introduced by 9DN7 DN (abbr. ns) but if you 
will say (object)... f. ex. Succah 16b; Gittin 11b; B. Metzia 10a : 
WhIwr N's. 


SOME SPECIAL KINDS OF OBJECTION. 
S 86. 


The terms p17 and NMawN are but species of the general 
term wip a question of objection. 
a. Where the objection consists in raising a point of con- 
tradiction between two statements of equal authority, as 
between two passages of Scriptures or between passages of the 


CHAPTER IX. 
D. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 


CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS, 


§ 82. 


According to their different nature, the questions asked 
in the Talmudic discussions may be divided into the following 
classes: 

1. Questions of investigation. 

2. Questions of astonishment. 

3. Questions of objection. 

4, Questions of problem. 


Remark. The Talmud, besides, often makes use of the rhetoric 
interrogation, that is, that figure of speech which puts in the form of a 
negative question what is meant to be strongly affirmative, and in the 
form of a positive question what is meant to be a decided negation, as: 
wd xbx is it then not—? = it is certainly so. 

in NOD are we not taught in the Mishna? = we are certainly 
taught so. 

95 1D % did he say so ? = he cannot have said so, 

maapd % do you think..? = you can not think so 


1. QUESTIONS OF INVESTIGATION. 
§ 83. 


As already stated above ($16.), the Talmud mostly in- 
troduces its explanations and investigations by a query, the 
object of which is to call attention to the point which requires 
elucidation, as ‘st what is the meaning of....? spy %ND what 
is the reason....? ;53 whence do we have this? 

Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the 
answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, ‘5 3px 
the teacher....said (in answer to this question)... 


Remark. To investigate asubject by questioning is sometimes 


Oo MEMRA. 
CHAPTER VI. 


DEFINITION OF AND PHRASES CONCERNING MEMRA. 


§ 63. 


In contradistinction tothe teachings, opinions and dect- 
sions of the Tanaim, contained in the Mishna and Baraitha, a 
reported teaching, opinion or decision of the Amoraim is termed 
Memra (S79), a saying. 

This term, like that of Amora, is derived from the verb 
“8 to say, which verb is mostly used in reference to the ex: 
pounders of the Mishna; while the verbs m3w and ‘3h are more 
restricted to references to Mishna and Baraitha.1 

As a characteristic term designating a reported teaching 
of the Amoraim,the word Meira is but rarely met with inthe 
Talmud; f. i. Gittin 42b; B. Bathra 48a. More frequently it 
occurs in the post - Talmudic literature. In the Gemara such 
reported opinions and decisions of Amoraim, especially con 
cerning legal matters are generally termed S/’maatina(RAnyow 
that which was heard by tradition, f. ex. Berachoth 42a; Sab- 
bath 24b; Chullin 46a), in contradistiction to ARE a re- 
ported homiletical teaching. 


A Memrais generally introduced by the word 4p a certain 
Amora said, related; sometimes also this word is preceded by 
the term 79s (contraction of “aNMN) it has been said, it is 
reported. 


1 Compare, for instance, the two modifying phrases: RON sw RS) 
and nds ‘ION x5, the former exclusively used in reference to a state- 
ment of the Mishna, and the latter to a teaching afan Amora. In 
connection with a Memra the verb xX9n is used only in certain phrases 
as: ... NAN... NoaT NNDd WNT NDN “some report the just quoted saying 
of that Amora in reference to the following case....”; f. ex. Berachoth 
8b; Sanhedrin 28b; Aboda Zarah 8b. 


PHRASES CONCERNING MEMRA., 225 


A. “08 
§ 64. 


a “DN preceding the name of a teacher,as 55 "iN, gener: 
ally introduces an interpretation, opinion, principle or decision 
of law originated or reported by that Amora, and not disputed 
by another, while 4x following the name, as 3 35 indicates 
at once that he is to be contradicted by another teacher, hold- 
ing a different view on that subject, as 7p Sssow...D8 2. 

b. ‘s 05D aps ’x °dp aos refers to a report which a 
disciple ora contemporary makes concerning a teaching which 
he received orally from its author, as Ssipy ADS mM DADS 
Rab Juda said that Samuel said (Berachoth 12a). 

But (3 mDwy or) 'D Dw 'D AON refers to a report con- 
cerning a teaching which he indirectly received from an author- 
ity of a former generation, as: .Dy)’" Dw pny 7 aps R. 
Jochanan reported in the name of R. Jose (Berachoth 7a). 

Where a different version existed concerning the teacher 
who reported or in whose name something is reported, that dif- 
ferent version is conscientiously added either by 75 ‘spy and 
some say it was.... (Berachoth 4a); or Sp°m Ss) (contracted of 
SDM si) there are some who say it was.... (Berachoth 5a), 
or pws mai) and some differ therefrom, saying it was in 
the name of... (Rosh Hashana 10a). 

d. IAMTN NT 13 955b: 8 IoD Both of the two teach- 
ers A and B said... This phrase introduces an opinion cvn- 
cerning which two Amoraim fully agree, though they mostly 
differ from each other, asim “DNT Ssipwi 33 Both Rab 
and Samuel said.. (Berachoth 36b). 


B. “8 
§ 65. 


The word "SAN zt was said, tt ts reported, especially at the 
beginning of a passage in the Gemara, generally introduces a 
Memra containing a difference of opinion or a controversy 
(NmnoD) between two or more Amoraim. Such differences ana 
controversies concern either: 


236. TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


out the representative of each opinion by referring to another 
case in which one of these two teachers expressed a certain 
view which coincides with one ofthe two opinions under con- 
sideration. 


Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: 
OST NIT NST OMMOM it may be ascertained that it is the 
Amora A who holds....If the argument is accepted, this is in- 
dicated by the closing term gmon it is correctly ascertained, 
or 9’w, hear it from this. 


Examples: Berachoth 45a; Megillah 27a; B. Kamma 29b. 


CHAPTER VII. 


TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A SINGLE 
OPINION. 


1. QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REPORTED MEMRA 
§ 66. 


The correctness of the Memra is questioned, since the 
same author expressed elsewhere an opinion which is in con- 
flict with that contained inthis Memra. Such a question is al- 
ways phrased : (NDD‘S).....9ON NTT ’D WN 11 Did that 
Amora really say so ? But is he not reported as having said.... 
(something implying just the opposite opinion)? 

Examples: Berachoth 24b; Pesachim 30a; B. Kamma 29b. 

In answer to such a question, the Gemara generally tries 
to show, that in one or the other way the two contradicting 
Memras can be reconciled. | 

Remark. All Amoraim being regarded as having equal authority, 
the objection that another Amora expressed an opinion conflicting 
with the Memra under consideration is generally not admitted. 
Where such an objection is attempted, it is rejected by the phrase ; 
MD 7 XP $IDIN X73) how will you raise an objection from the opinion 
of one man (teacher) against that of another (who has the same au- 
thority and is entitled to have an opinion of his own)? Taanith 4b; 
Sanhedrin 6a; B. Kamma 43b, 

Sometimes, however, such an objection is admitted, especially in 
the case where the opinion of an Amora is in conflict with the gener- 
ally accepted decision of a former leading authority among the Amo- 
raim. In this case, the objection is phrased: ....xm)\2.29& Is that so? 
but that other Amora (expressed an opinion which conflicts with 
that under consideration), Examples: Berachoth 14a; Moed Katon 
20a; Betza 9a; compare Rashi’s remark on the last mentioned pas 
sage. 


228 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


9. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE COLLIDING WITH A MISHNA OR 
A BARAITHA, 


§ 67, 


The objection is raised against the author of the Memra 
that the latter isin conflict with an undisputed Mishna or Ba- 
raitha, the authority of which is superiorto that of an Amora. 
Such an objection is generally introduced either by the phrase 
saomey they (i. e. the members of the academy) refuted it, they 
raised a point of contradiction from the higher authority of a 
Mishna or Baraitha, or ~pa NS he raised against this a point 
of contradiction from a higher authority, or 93355 a°n1 a cer- 
tain teacher refuted this, or simply by jana but are we not 
taught in the Mishna ? s°snnmi are we not taught in the Ba- 
raitha....(differently)? 


Examples: Berachoth 10b; Rosh Hashana 6b; B. Metzia 10a, 

Remark. Such an objection or refutation from a higher autho- 
rity is termed Nna\n. The argument of the objection often closes 
with the phrase s554 Nnayvn this is a refutation of that Amora; or 
xnayn 2 SD Nnayvn is this not a refutation of that Amora 2? Itisa 
refutation! (i. e., the point of refutation is well taken). Mostly how- 
ever the objection is removed by showing that the Mishna or Baraitha 
referred to treats of a different case or different circumstances, and such 
a defense is introduced by the phrase; ...‘5 “0 79x that Amora might 
say (in answer to this objection) that...; f. ex., Berach th 84a; B. 


Kamma 14a. 


8. FINDING THE MEMRA TO BE SUPERFLUOUS. 
S 68. 


The Memra is shown to be unnecessary, since the same 
opinion which the Amora expresses therein is already stated 
in a Mishna. This objection is phrased: »993n "2p SH what 
does that Amora let us hear, since we have already been 
taught that in the following Mishna..? 

Examples: Berachoth 45b; Taanith 10a, B. Kamma 5b. 


TREATMENT OF A PLAIN MEMRA. 229 


Remark 1. This objection is mostly removed by showing that 
the Memra contains something in addition to the Mishna. 

Remark 2. The question Supp ‘NH is not raised where the opinion 
of the Memra is not expressly but merely impliedly contained in the 
Mishna. In this case the Mishna is referred to just to corroborate the 
Menira by the phrase ~9°9n 3 JIN AN we have also a Mishna to 
the same effect; f. ex. Berachoth 27a; Yoma 26b; Aboda Zara 8a. 


4, CORROBORATING THE MEMRA BY A BARAITHA. 
§ 69. 


Such a corroborating Baraitha is generally introduced by 
the phrase: %35 %3 N93n (abbr. 7”’3n) a Baraitha, too, teaches 
thus; or, we have also a Baraitha to the same effect. 

Examples: Berachoth 9b, Taanith 10a; Sanhedrin 23a. 

Remark. The question : ‘‘Why does the Amora need to teach 
that which is already stated in the Raraitha ?” is never raised, since 
the Amora was expected to know every Mishna, but nut every Ba- 


raitha, 


5. CORROBORAITING THE MEMRA BY ONE OF ANOTHER AUTHORITY. 
S270; 

Sometimes one Memra is corroborated by another one 
which is introduced by ...°%3 “ins we have also another Mem- 
ra to the same effect. Such is especially the case where the 
Memra of a Babylonian Amora is supported by one of a Pa- 
lestinian authority. 


Examples: Chagiga 24a; Gittin 13b; Sanhedrin 29a. 
6. <A DIFFERENT REPORT. 
Ss 70h 


After a Memra has been treated in the above stated ways, 
a different report ("ONT SDN some say, some report....) is some- 
times introduced in which the Amora referred to just expresses 
the opposite opinion. The discussion then turns the tables, so 


330 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


that every objection which was madeto the former report, be- 
comes now a support, and every former support an objection. 


Examples: Berachoth 10b; Betza 13a; Maccoth 3b. 
7. CORRECTING THE MEMRA. 
§ 72. 
Strong objections having been raised against a Memra, it 
is sometimes re-established in a rectified form by the phrase: 


-IDAN MITA oS NON but if such Memra was report-— 
ed, it must have been reported in the following way... 
Examples: Berachoth 15b; Yoma 28a; Kiddushin 11b. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


TREATMENT OF A MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFER- 
ENCE OF OPINION. 


1. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE CORRECT READING OF A 
MISHNA PARAGRAPH. 


§.73, 


Each of the contesting teachers argues for the correctness 
of his way of reading; the argument being based either on the 
context of the Mishna under consideration, or on a common 
sense reason. The question is then finally settled by referring 
to another Mishna or to a Baraitha in support of one of the 
two ways of reading. 


Examples: B. Kamma 37a; B. Metzia 80a; Shebuoth 16a. 
Remark. Sometimes, both ways of reading are declared to be 


admissible by the phrase: wanwy NXO....INT IND Wanwy Xd.....07 IND. 
‘‘He who reads the Mishna in this way is pe Maen and he whe 
reads it in the other way is neither wrong, for... 
Examples: Succah 50b; Yebamoth 17a; Aboda Zara 2a. 


29. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE EXPLANATION OF A TERM 
OR PASSAGE IN THE MISHNA. 


§ 74. 


The supposed arguments for and against each of the differ- 
ent explanations are investigated in the following way: 

Question]: ‘a °7d5DD aps No wD ’s 75D Why does the 
Amora A not explain as Amora B? 

Answer: eae “2x he might say.,. (I have the following 
objection to his explanation.. ) 

Question 2: TIPS and the other (teacher B) ? i. e 


YU 
how will be he remove this objection? 


932 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


The answer having been given, question 1 is again direct- 
ed to B: why does he not explain as A? This question is then 
treated in a similar way as the former. 

Examples: Gittin lia; B. Kamma 22a; Sanhedrin 25a. 


3. THE DIFFERENCE CONCERNING THE REASON OF A LAW. 
S715. 


The practical consequence of adopting either of the two . 
reasons assigned to the law by the contesting Amoraim is in- 
vestigated by asking: 

MIS IN what is the difference between them? i. e., in 
what respect does it make a difference in the application of the 
law, whether this or the other reason be assigned to it? 

The answer is always introduced by the phrase: po» 
e393 there is (it makes) a difference concerning... 

Examples: Gittin 2b; B. Metzia 15b; Sanhedrin 24b. 


4. INVESTIGATING THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE DIFFERENCE 
OF OPINION. . 


§ 76. 


Where the difference between the contesting Amoraim jn- 
volves a principle of law, that principle is investigated by the 
question : DOP ‘N12 in what do they differ? Or, What is 
the point of difference ? On what general principle do they 
disagree ? 

Examples: Pesachim 68b; Gittin 34a; B. Metzia 15b. 

Remark. Before defining the difference, sometimes the points 
are stated in which both sides agree, and which therefore are exclud- 
ed from the discussion. This is usually done in the following phrase: 
pda 1 da xd (sndy a)....8007 52 As regards....they (both of 
the contesting teachers) do not disagree, but they differ concernin pee 

Examples: Yoma 6b; Pesachim 30b; B. Metzia 21b. 

5. SHOWING CONSISTENCY OF OPINIONS IN BOTH OF THE 

CONTESTING TEACHERS, 


Salil 
After having stated the difference, the Gemara shows that 


MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION 233 


the divergence of opinions in this case is in full accordance 
with the opposite Views or principles expressed elsewhere by 
the same teachers. The phrases used in showing such consist- 
ency of opinion in both of the contesting Amoraim are: 

a. impypod itn: they go according to their principles, 
i, e., they differ, each following his own principle. 

Examples: Sabbath 34b; Pesachim 29a, Shebuoth 15b. 

b. .... mayod ‘andar meypod ‘sy ondp Amora A follows 
his principle, and also Amora B follows his principle.... 

Examples: Pesachim 29b; Gittin 24b; B. Kamma 53a. 


Remark. The phrase pypd stKxXi is used where reference is 
made to another dispute between the same teachers, while sappy #2) 
refers to a principle laid down by either of the two teachers independ” 
ently from each other. 


6. DISCUSSING THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 
§ 78. 


By the introductory phrase: pow sn (abbr. wn) Come 
and hear, OF: FAD MIN or: INN @ certain teacher or they (the 
members of the academy) objected (by appealing to a higher au- 
thority), a Mishna or a Baraitha is referred to in suport 
(yrrD or smy"p)of the opinion of one,and as a refutation (NADI) 
of that of the other of the contesting Amoraim. A discussion 
then usually follows with the object of rejecting the support 
or repelling the attack. The result of that discussion is et- 
ther that the question at issue remains undecided, or it is decided 
against one and in favor of the other ofthe contesting Amoraim. 
The usual phrase in the latter case is: 

(3 ondpt mn snodm) Psnavn 2's ondat snavn “Ts 
this not a refutation of the opinion of Amora A? It is a refu- 
tation! And the decision is according to the opinion of Amora B.”’ 

Examples: Sanhedrin 27a; B. Metzia 21b-22b; Chullin 
28a. Examples of not distinctly decided discussions: Pesachim 
80b-31b; B. Kamma 56b-57b; B. Metzia 38b. 


234 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


Remark. Commenting on a Mishna-paragraph which has some 
bearing on a well known difference of opinion between Amoraim, the 
Gemara sometimes starts with the question, whether, or not this Mishna 
offers an argument in favor of, or against, the opinion of one of these 
Amoraim. The phrases used in such an investigation are: 

a. .../Bd m5 yyp nd is it to say, that this Mishna supports the 
Amora A? 

Examples: Succah 15b; Betza 11a; B. Kamma 62b. 

Dieses avnenniia xpd is it to say, that this Mishna isa refuta- 
tion of Amora B? 

Examples: Sabbath 9b; Succah 15a; Yoma 19a, 


7. TRACING BACK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMORAIM TO ONE 
BETWEEN ‘T'ANAIM. 


§ 79, 


After having treated a Memra in accordance with the above 
stated methods, the Gemara often attempts to show that the 
same difference of opinion between the two Amoraim is already 
found among two Tanaim. For this purpose a Mishna or a 
Baraitha is quoted containing a difference between Tanaim 
concerning a subject which has some bearing upon the differ. 
ence under consideration. The point of discussion becomes 
now whether or not the principle underlying the difference be- 
tween those two Tanaim is identical with that under considera- 
tion, so that Amora A agrees with Tana A, and Amora B with 
Tana B. The phrases introducing this investigation are: 


a. SIND NO° (or, ND) is it tosay, that this difference 
is like that between Tanaim? 

Examples: Pesachim 81a; Gittin 14b; Sanhedrin 27a. 

b. 0b ‘DP (‘21/8 ONIN) ...TSMMdDZ Nor is it to say, 
that these Amoraim differ according to the difference of opinion 
between those Tanaim A and B? 

Examples: Shebuoth 25a; Maccoth 11b; Nedarin -5b. 


MEMRA CONTAINING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. 235 


Remark. Like other investigations of the Gemara introduced by 
xo or X1°), also this attempt leads generally to a negative result, as 
it is finally shown that the principle implied in the difference between 
the Tanaim does not at all concern the case under consideration. But 
where after a discussion between Amoraim the Gemara simply states: 
WIND ‘‘this is like the difference between Tanaim”, or 7 ONIN “this 
difference is identical with that of the Tanaim”, (f. i. Berachoth 22a; 
R. Hashana 15a; B. Metzia 54a) that statement is generally not disputed. 


8. SUPPORTING EACH OF TWO CONTESTING TEACHERS BY A 
BARAITHA. 


§ 80. 


Two anonymous Baraithoth are referred to, one of which 
agrees with the opinion of one, and the other with that ofthe 
other of the contesting Amoraim. The phrase used in this case is, 

'Q°N5DT MND NINN NOT MND gn there isa Ba- 
raitha agrecing with the opinion of Amora A, and a Baraitha 
agreeing with the opinion of Amora B. 


Examples: Yoma 4a; Betza 6a; Gittin 18a. 


9. ASCERTAINING THE AUTHORSHIP OF TWO OPPOSITE 
OPINIONS. 


§ 81, 


There are Memras reporting that, concerning a certain 
question, two Amoraim A and B differed from each other, one 
holding one, and the other the opposite opinion, without clear- 
ly stating which is which, that is, who of the contesting Amo- 
raim holds the one, and who the other opinion, as: 


TDN TM...Is TH 3 55) SIH... 1M it is reported, 
that concerning....the Amora A and Amora B expressed differ- 
ent opinions, one holding....and the other... 


In treating such a Memra, the Gemara usually tries to find 


236 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


out the representative of each opinion by referring to another 
case in which one of these two teachers expressed a certain 
view which coincides with one ofthe two opinions under con- 
sideration. 


Such an investigation is always introduced by the phrase: 
DONT Sin OPT oon it may be ascertained that it is the 
Amora A who holds....If the argument is accepted, this is in- 
dicated by the closing term pon it is correctly ascertained, 
or )’w, hear it from this. 


Examples: Berachoth 45a; Megillah 27a; B. Kamma 29b. 


CHAPTER IX. 
D. ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 


CLASSIFICATION OF QUESTIONS. 


§ 82. 


According to their different nature, the questions asked 
in the Talmudic discussions may be divided into the following 
classes: 

1. Questions of investigation. 

2. Questions of astonishment. 

3. Questions of objection. 

4. Questions of problem. 


Remark. The Talmud, besides, often makes use of the rhetoric 
interrogation, that is, that figure of speech which puts in the form of a 
negative question what is meant to be strongly affirmative, and in the 
form of a positive question what is meant to be a decided negation, as: 
wd xby is it then not—? = it is certainly so. 

pn NS) ‘) are we not taught in the Mishna? = we are certainly 
taught so. 

37 DN 1 did he say so ? = he cannot have said so, 

nad % do you think..? = you can not think so 


1. QUESTIONS OF INVESTIGATION. 
§ 83. 


As already stated above ($16.), the Talmud mostly in- 
troduces its explanations and investigations by a query, the 
object of which is to call attention to the point which requires 
elucidation, as ‘st what is the meaning of....? spy~y Np what 
is the reason....? 73) whence do we have this? 

Such questions are generally asked anonymously, while the 
answer is mostly given in the name of a certain teacher, ‘5 “9s 
the teacher....said (in answer to this question)... 


Remark. To investigate asubject by questioning is sometimes 


238 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY 


termed ‘5 73°" a certain teacher asked investigatingly concerning 
this matter (B. Kamma 7a; Kethuboth £8b; Nedarin 88b); m2 pA 
we asked investigatingly concerning it (Berachoth 45b; Sabbath 6b; 
Gittin 4b and frequently). This latter phrase is especially used where 
reference is made to investigating questions asked in another passage 
‘of the Talmud. Also the noun of this verb ‘7 is occasionally used, 
as Ssioen 304 nyvin the investigating questions of Rab and Samuel 
(Berachoth 20a) xan “ays ny (Succah 28a; B. Bathra 134a). 


2. QUESTIONS OF ASTONISHMENT, 
§ 84, 


A question of astonishment, termed mmiisn, expresses wond- 
er and surprise at an unexpected statement or argument just 
heard; as: 358 is thisso? 53 is this not the case? sy NpoD 
does this enter thy mind? i. e., do you really mean to say this ? 
s13Dni how can you understand (explain) it in this way? 
‘SO ONT what is this! how can you say this? 


Such a question does in generul not expect an answer 
though the latter mostly follows the question. 


To this kind of questions belongs also the counter-question 
in which a question asking for information, instead of being 
answered, is repeated with surprise, as if to say, how can you 
ask such a strange question, as: nae 2 yoap (Megilla 2a; 
Sanhedrin 68b), !p 39 qa (Chullin 42b.). 


Remark. A peculiar phrase expressing a question of astonish- 
ment is: ab INP UND m xpi) he who asks (or objects) this, what 
does he ask (object) here? i. e., why ask a question where the 
answer iS obvious enough ? or, why raise an objection so easily re. 
moved? Yoma 80b; Yebamoth 11a; B. Bathra 2b. ! 


‘According toa tradition mentioned by Joshua b. Joseph Halevi 
(Halichoth Olam p. 9a; compare Frankel, Monatsschrift 1861, p. 267), 
all passages of the Talmud introduced by this peculiar phrase of 
question belong to the additions made by the Saburaim. 


ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS 239 


3. QUESTIONS OF OBJECTION. 
§ 85. 


These are questions in which a point of difficulty, disagree- 
ment, incongruity or contradiction is raised against a state- 
ment, construction or argument. The Gemara uses different 
terms for such questions: 

The general term for a question of this kind is Swip 42 
difficulty, also used as a verb WON to ask an objecting question, 
to raise a point of objection, to show adifficulty. The question 
is mostly introduced by the interjection: 7 but lo! which is 
often prefixed to the following word, as jinmi but lo! are 
we not taught in the Mishna...? s»3nmi is it not taught in 
the Baraitha.. ? 4DMNmi was it pot said by an Amora.... ? 
mapxm but did you not say....? 

The answer to such a question is termed PIV @ re- 
conciliation, a satisfactory answer, and is usually introduced by 
the phrase: s*wp x5 tnere is no difficulty. Where no satis- 
factory auswer can be found, it is indicated by the closing term 
swp the difficulty remains, the point of objection is well taken, 
f. ex. Moed Katon 22b, Maccoth 5b. 


Remark 1. When two different questions are raised at the same 
time, the second is introduced by jn} and again... (I further ask...); 
f. ex. Berachoth 2a. 

Where the same question is answered by the Gemara in two dif- 
ferent ways, the second answer is introduced by: NON Nya) and if 
you wish, you may Ssay....; f. ex. Berachoth 8a. In this case the se- 
cond answer has generally more force than the former. Sometimes, 
however, both answers are introduced by this phrase, as...ND"X Mya sx 
(ONO'S MYDN you may either answer.... or you may answer...; f. ex. 
Berachoth 4b. In this case both answers are of equal force. 

The same question is often answered by two or more teachers, by 
each in a different way. In this case, the former teacher is introduced 
by ‘px, and each of the following by 7px ‘B; f. ex., Sanhedrin 32 
a. b, where four teachers belonging to different generations (R. Cha- 
nina, Raba, Rab Papa and Rab Ashe) offer different answers to the 


240 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


same question. Great ingenuity is in this respect displayed by some of 
the teachers, especially by the rivaling contemporaries Abaye and 
Raba, in showing that a question already answered by the other tea- 
cher might also have been answered in a different way; f. ex., Pesa- 
chim 5b; Kiddushin 5a; B. Metzia 52a. 

Remark 2, The answer to a question or an objection is often re- 
futed, and a new answer is then offered either by the refuter, or by 
another. In this case, the new answer is generally introduced by xbyx 
‘3D, the word xx but indicatin g that the point of refutation 
against the former answer was well taken. Examples: Berachoth 30b; 
Pesachim 9b; B. Metzia 81a. 

Where of two answers given, the latter is refuted, the accept- 
ance of the former is indicated either by the phrase a5 Nya bbi ata) xox 
but more correct is the answer of the first teacher (f. ex. Taanith 4b; 
Chullin 117a), or in case that answer had been given anonymously, by 
the phrase NIP YS pIWID KXAN xbx more correct is as we answered 
at first (f. ex. Pesachim 17b; Maccoth 2b; B. Metzia 3a). 

Remark 3. In questions of investigation as well as of objection, 
the questioner sometimes anticipates an answer which he shows to be 
inadmissible. Such anticipation (termed in rhetoric prolepsis) in 
questions of investigation is introduced by:... xp*s»~ is it to say...0 f. 
ex. Berachoth 9b; Kiddushin 29a; Gittin 9a. In questions of objec- 
tion it is introduced by:...~ 7 95) and if you will say ( answer)..., f. ex. 
Sanhedrin 6a; Kiddushin 8b; Gittin 8b. On the other hand, where in 
giving an answer or explanation, an objection is anticipated which is 
to be removed, it is introduced by 79NnN ON) (abbr. nx) but if you 
will say (object)... f. ex. Succah 16b; Gittin 11b; B. Metzia 10a: 
WNIwID N's. 


SoME SpecIAL KINDS oF OBJECTION. 


§ 86. 


The terms x15 and sn3aN are but species of the general 
term swip a question of objection. 
a. Where the objection consists in raising a point of con- 
tradiction between two statements of equal authority, as 
between two passages of Scriptures or between passages of the 


ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 241 


Mishna and the Baraitha, it is termed yp (of the verb %p5 
to cast, to throw against, to bring in opposition) setting 
authority against authority, bringing authorities in opposition 
to each other. Such a question of objection or contradiction 
is generally introduced by the phrase:....99 9355 a certain 
teacher asked the following question of contradiction between 
two passages....; or by ;....ny wi I raise against this the ques- 
tion of a conflict of authorities, i. e., I find this Mishna to be 
in conflict with the following passage in an other Mishna or in 
a Baraitha.... Omitting this introductory phrase, such a 
question is often set forth simply by:...jinmi but are we not 
taught in (another) Mishna...? s93mmi are we not taught in 
a Braitha...? (See above § 49) 

b. smawn (the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word msiwn 
an answer, gainsaying, objection, refutation) signifies an ob- 
jection raised against an Amora as being in conflict with the 
superior authority of a statement in a Mishna or Baraitha, It 
is generally introduced by 93155 ssn a certain teacher raised 
the following objection from a higher authority...; or Ma°MS 
he objected to him from a higher authority; or: %39n°» they 
(the teachers of the Academy) raised the following objection 
(See above § 67) 


The answer to such a point of objection is termed ssygsy 
a difference or distinction, in aS much as it mostly attempts to 
reinove the contradiction by showing that the two statements, 
seeiningly in conflict with each other, actually refer to different 
cases or circumstances. The answer is generally introduced 
by :...N2m Nw here isa different case, or by: ....OMN....{N2 
here... there..., or ....N7 ....Nfj.in this case..., but in the other 
case...., Or by: ....jPPDY %NOS Son here we treat of the 
special case that..... 


Remark 1. These distinctions for the purpose of removing a 
contradiction ase often very strained, and are in this case sometimes 
characterized by the Talmud itself as Xpnt Kw a forced or 
strained answer, f. ex.; B. Kamma 43a. ; 106a.; Kethuboth 42b. 


242 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


Remark 2. The answer to an objection is also termed xpi" (from 
p15 to redeem, to rescue, to unload ; hence, to free one from the burden 
of an objection) ; as "ANT NpinD B. Kamma 14a. More frequently 
used is the verb, as 75 pipd xim nd any xin he asked a question 
of objection, and he answered it, Kiddushin 44b; Gittin 58a. B. Kamma 
43b. 3 or ah mIpPrHyDI 5 wp he asked me questions of objection, 
and I answered them, B. Metzia 84a. 


THE. DILEMMA, 
§ 87 


Objections are sometimes set forth in the form of a dilem 
ma (termed 7w53 7), presenting two or more alternatives 
of a case or an opinion, and showing it to be equally objection- 
able whichever alternative we may choose, as: 

a (sw) CoN] (Sw) ON WHI MD whal is thy wish? 
i. e., which alternative do you choose ? zf... (then my objection 
is; ....) avd 77... (then my objection 1824...) 

Examples : Sabbath 46a; B. Kamma 38a; Chullin 12a. 

DB. (NW) ....98T (NWP)... DT D9 how shall we 
imagine this case? if... (then my objection is....) and if... 
(then I have to object....). 

Examples : Kethuboth 72a ; B. Metzia 21a; B. Bathra 78b. 

Ce ee NT NM JPDY NDS of what circumstance do we 
treat here? if.... (objection), and if.... (objection). 

Examples: Sabbath 30a, Gittin 37b, B. Metzia 12b. 

CLESa er SNe ae KS 720P ND what 1s his opinion? If he 
holds that.... (then I object....), and if he holds.... (I also 
ODIeCti)s 


Examples: Berachoth 3a; Sanhedrin 2b; Kiddushin 6b. 
The answer to a dilemma either shows a middle ground bet ween 
the two alternatives, or defends one of the alternatives against 
the objection made to it. In the first case, it is introduced by 


‘The phrase of Jw5) 719 is also used in introducing am argument 
in defense, proving that a decision or opinion is equally correct which- 
ever of the two alternatives we may choose. Examples: Betza 10b, 
Gittin 48b; B. Metzia 6b. 


ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS. 243 


the phrase ...7 xo™¥ Nd it is not necessary so (namely to 
choose just one of the presented alternatives), for....(a third al- 
ternative is imaginable to which none of your objections ap- 
plies). Inthe second case, the answer is generally introduced 
by the word o5iy5 which in this connection stands for odsyd 
ie NOS sz [ maintain (one of the alternatives with some mo- 
difications). 
REJOINDER, 


§ 88, 


Where the answer to an objection or to a refutation is 
found to be insufficient, the weak points thereof are set forth 
in a rejoinder. The phrases mostly used in such a rejoinder are: 

CS ocsclspeniahta) (literally: the end of the end...) anyhow, at 
all events, that is, however extreme my concession to the suppo- 
sition of your answer mayle,my former objection still remains... 

Examples: Megilla 3a; Gittin 24a; B. Metzia lé6a. 

b. Where the rejoinder goes to demonstrate that the 
answer does not cover all cases the following phrase is used: 

[D°D5 NON OND ....3 ....9 MIM) you may be right... (i. e., 
your defense is acceptable concerning one case), but concer- 
ning... (that other case of....) what have you to say? 

Examples: Pesachim lla; Gittin 4b; B. Metzia 38a. 

c. Where the answer is found to be based only ona dis- 

puted principle, the rejoinder is phrased; 

[D109 NINN ...TONT NOD NOS... ONT INOS NIN 

That 1s all right according to him who holds...,but accord- 
ing tohim who holds....(the opposite opinion), what is there to 
say? Hxamples: Berachoth 12a; Yoma 3a; Sanhedrin 8a. 


4, (QUESTIONS OF PROBLEMS. 
S 89. 


Problem is a question proposed for solution concerning a 
matter difficult of settlement. The pages ofthe Talmud are 
full of such questions. The doubt involved in those questions 
concern there either the correct reading, or the proper con- 


244 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 


struction and meaning of the Mishna, or the decision of a case 
not provided for in the Mishna. 


Such questions are termed pps problems, questions of 
doubt, and are generally introduced by »95p ‘pa a certain tea- 
cher asked the following difficult question, he propounded a 
problem for solution, or 3955p °n5D %ys A asked B to solve 
the following question ; or when such a question was asked 
anonymously in a school, it is introduced by: wd ssya%s the 
following problem was proposed by them (i. e. by the members 
of the academy). 

The point of the question is generally followed by the 
interrogative wnt how is it ? The two sides of the question 
are usually set forth by: ....ND9T IN ....72O8 1 shall 
we say.... or perhaps..... Sometimes, however, the phrase 
j27D8 > is omitted, and must be supplied. 

Examples of problems: 1. Concerning the proper 
reading or construction of the Mishna: Sabbath 36b ; 
Yoma 41b; B. Kamma 19a. 

2 Concerning the source or reason of a: law: 

Taanith 2b; Aboda Zara 6a; Gittin 45a. 

3 Concerning cases not provided for in the Mishna : 

Sabbath 38a Pesachim 4b Kiddushin 7b; B. Bathra 5b. 


Remark. Where the propounded problem appears to be merely 
theoretical, the practical consequence of its solution is investigated 
by the query: AID NpD x05 for what case will it be of 
consequence ? Examples: Pesachim 4a; B. Kamma 24a; Gittin 36b.’ 


SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM. 
§ 90 


The solution of a problem (the verb is pws) is 
introduced by the phrase yaw sr (abbr. wn) come and 
hear. When rejected, another solution introduced by the same 
phrase is generally attempted. The final acceptance of a 
solution is indicated by the closing phrase s 39% yow hear 
it therefrom, i. e., this settles the question, this is the 
correct solution. 


ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS 245° 


Where no solution is found, it is indicated by the term 
IPN (=D) it stands, i. e., the question remains unsolved. 

Where the questioner himself finds a solution, the phrase 
is: AOWD wIM %pyat wanz after having propounded this 
question, he again solved it. Examples: Sabbath 4b; Kid- 
dushin 9b; Sanhedrin 10a. 

ihe ont of several problems only one can be solved, the 
solution is introduced by the phrase 4m NAD wiwD you 
may solve, at least, one of them: f. ex. B. Metzia 25a; 
Gittin 44a. | 


A SERIES OF PROBLEMS LINKED TOGETHER. 
§ 91 


Sometimes, a series of problems concerning imaginary 
cases of a certain law are set forth by a teacher, and so 
arranged that if one of them be solved, the following one 
would still remain doubtful. Hach problem, except the first 
one, is then generally introduced by the phrase...->15 SSR ON 
and if you should be able to say.... (to solve it in one way) 
) still ask... (the following case). 

Examples: Pesachim 10b; Kiddushin 7b; Kethuboth 2a; 
B. Metzia 21a; 24a. 

Remark. Some of the Babylonian teachers, especially Raba, R. 
Jirmiah, Rab Papa, were noted for having indulged in propounding 
such problems concerning imaginary cases in order to display their 
ingenuity. R. Jirmiah was at a certain occasion even expelled from the 
academy for having troubled his colleagues by his imaginary and trif- 
ling problems (B. Bathra 28b). Of Raba and some other teachers it is 
expressly stated that they occasionally propounded such _ problems, 
merely for the purpose of examining the ability and acuteness of their 
pupils; Erubin 51a; Menachoth 91b; Chullin 188a. 


QUESTIONS LAID BEFORE HIGHER AUTHORITIES FOR DECISION. 
§ 92. 


Different from the questions of problem just spoken of are 


246 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


those questions which were directed to a higher authority, 
either to a celebrated teacher or to an academy, especially of 
Palestine, to consider and deciie upen » difficulty or a dis- 
pute. Such questions are usually introduced by the phrase : 
.dd7 75) das m5 indw they sent to a certain teacher 
(asking.}: may our teacher instruct us concernrixg...... The 
answer is then introduced by: ....3m5 mow he sent to them 
(the answer)... . 


Examples :  sanneiris 8a; B. Kamma 27b; Gittin 66b. 
Remark. Also the phrase pn» ynby they sent from there {i. e. 


from Palestine to Babylon) means, they sent an answer to a question 
airected to them; f. 2s,, Bstza 4b; Gittin 20a; Sanhedrin 17b. 


CHAPTER X. 
E. ARGUMENTATION. 


1. TERMS AND PHRASES INTRODUCING AN ARGUMENT. 


§ 93 


An argument, that is. the reason offered to prove or dis- 
prove any matter of question, is termed pyy (the reason). 

In the Talmudic discussion, arguments are mostly intro- 
duced by one of the following phrases ; 

a. Spy No what isthe reason? Berachoth 3b, a. elsewhere. 

b. pow Nm come and hear, i. e., you may derive it from 
the following...; Berachoth 2b, a. elsewhere. 

© yam you may know (infer) it from the following. Berachoth 
15a; B. Metzia 5b, a. elsewhere. 

d. soso xsp whence doI maintain this ?on what do I 
base my opinion? Berachoth 25a; Sabbath 11b, a. elsewhere. 

e. saipsm xgup3 and whence may you say (prove) that....? 
Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 1la. 

f. jax ‘mj let us see (into the subject), let us argue on the 
subject. Berachoth 27a; B. Kamma51b; B. Metzia 8b. 

g. sasmon it is reasonable. it is in accordance with com- 
mon sense. Berachoth 2b; Sabbath 25a; Kiddushin 5a. 

h. NSIDNDD D3 DM so it is also reasonable; this may be 
proved by the following reasoning. Yoma 16a; B. Kamma 26a; 
B. Metzia 10a. 

1 M3 RPT it is also proved by a conclusion. Berachoth 
26a, a. elsewhere. 


The last mentioned phrase is especially used where the 
argument is based on a conclusion drawn from the wording 
of a passage. 


248 ‘TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


2. CLASSIFICATION OF ARGUMENTS, 
S$ 94 

Arguments are either direct or indirect. In the first case, 
the grounds or reasons are laid down, and the correctness of 
the proposition to be proved is inferred from them. In the 
second case, the thesis is not proved immediately, but by 
showing the falschood of its contradictory. 

In the Talmud, the arguments mostly used in direct as 
well as indirect reasoning, are the following: 


The argument from common sense. 

The argument from authority. 

The argument: from construction and implication. 

The argument from analogy. 

The argument @ fortiort. 

a. ARGUMENT FROM COMMON SENSE. 
§ 95 

A common sense argument is termed s45p, so in the 
phrases: Ni $120 it is a common sense reasoning; Pesachim 
21b; Sanhedrin 15a, B. Metzia 27b. S”’sy5 p15D NOS Mys oN 
sip if you wish, I refer to common sense, and if you wish, 
I refer to a biblical passage; Berachoth 4b, Yebamoth 39b, 
Kiddushin 35a. 

Common sense reasons are generally introduced by the 
conjunctives: ....Nm7 for behold..., ....9 59m because, jv 
we.e7 Since, ....959 because, .,..7 OD on account of, 35D 
eect Ola shDeCCalse.es. 


oh ASAT ier te 


b. ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY. 


SwoD: 


An argument from authority, termed "4 the proof, 
the evidence, is that which appeals to the authority of the 
Bible (Sup “ast for Scripture says; ssn57 for it is written; 
“Osiw for it is said), or to the authority of the Mishna (janis 
for it-is taught in: the Mishna), or to that of the Baraitha 
(NIT; WT), or to the accepted teaching of an Amora (DN5 


ARGUMENTATION. 249 


sso), or to an accepted tradition (3 we have learned by 
tradition, Beracbhoth 28a, Succah 5b; jup3 we have received 
it by tradition, Erubin 5a, Gittin 32b, Maccoth 10b), or to 
a settled rule and established principle of law (}5 sowpt for 
it is established among us, it ig a generally accepted opinion 
or maxim, Yebamoth 6a, Gittin 28b; jams for we generally 
say, hold the opinion, Yebamoth 8b, B. Metzia 25p). 

The Talmud being occupied chiefly with questions of law, 
arguments from authority are there of supreme importance. 

The inference from the cited authority is generally intro- 
duced by sp5s hence, consequently (Pesachim 2a-3a), or by 
4554 in this is implied, from this follows, or by m3 pow 
hear from this, i. e. you may infer herefrom.... 

Remark 1. The phrase 7°31) pow is also used to express the final ap- 
proval of the preceding argument, and is then to be translated by: It 
follows therefrom the argument is accepted; Pesachim 3a a. elsewhere. 

Remark 2. Where the argument from authority is based merely 
on the supposition of a certain interpretation of the quoted passage 
or on a supposed circumstance to which it refers, that supposition 
is introduced by Nd o~p is it not (to be supposed) that....? 
In answering such an argument, the opponent generally denies 
that supposition by ..Nd it is not so, but... ; f. ex., Pesachim 16b; 
Sanhedrin 24b; B. Kamma 15b. 


c. ARGUMENT FROM A CLOSE CONSTRUCTION OF A PASSAGE. 
Si in 


This is an argument which draws conclusions from a 
careful consideration of the words in which a law is framed. 
Such an argument is termed Spry (from the verb pit to 
examine minutely, to consider a thing carefully), and is most- 
ly introduced by the phrase: gait Pinel ED. ehh it is also 
proved by a conclusion from the expression used in this Mishna 
or Baraitha. | 

Examples: Succah 3a; Kiddushin 8a; Shebuoth 29b. 


Remark. Hereto belongs also that argument in which conclusions 


250 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


are drawn from a positive statement to the negative, and vice versa, 
by emphasizing either the subject or the predicate or the modification 
in the clause of a law under consideration. The phrase used in such 
conclusions is either: ....Nn ....3 NDy the reason (the force, stress) 
of this law is in the expressly stated case of.... but.... (in the opposite 
case, the decision of the law is the reverse); f. ex., Kiddushin 5b; 
B. Kamma 48b;R. Meztia 25a. Sometimes the phrase is: Sax, Pees 
x5... strictly in this case yes, but...(otherwise) not; f. ex., Yoma 
85b; B. Metzia 80a; 34a. ) 

Such arguments resting merely on the emphasis of an expression 
are often very arbitrary and fallacious, and are in this case prompt- 
ly rcfuted in the Talmud. 


d. ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGY. 
§ 98. 


An argument from analogy, termed won or sop34, is that 
which infers from the similarity of two cases that, what has 
been decided in the one, applies also in the other. 

Such arguments are introduced by one of the fol- 
lowing phrases: 

a. ....7 NDT in similarity with the case of...; Kiddushin 
12a; B..Bathra 28b. 


b. «89 N58 suotNd NO this is rather like that other 
case of...; Sabbath 12a; Kiddushin 7a; B. Metzia 30a. 


C.  «...923 [MDWNTD as we find concerning...; Berachoth 20b. 

d.  ....8 MINT 4 something which is found concerning..., 
i. €., just as in the case of...; Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 4a; 
Gittin 8b. 

Also the phrase: ($%3n) J3n ND ° are we not taught in the 
Mishna (or Baraitha) ? mostly introduces an argument from 
analogy; Pesachim 7a, 9a; Kiddushin 7a. 

The application of the analogous case to the case under 


consideration is generally introduced by °D3 NOM ...Onn OND 
as there... so here, too. 


ARGUMENTATION. 251 


e. ARGUMENT a Fortiori, 
§ 99. 


The argument a fortiori, termed 193m) 2D; is a kind of 
argument from analogy, and consists in proving that a thing 
being true in one case js more evidently so in another in which 
the circumstances are more favorable. 

In regard to Biblical interpretation, this argument was 
treated in Part II of this book as the first rule of the ‘lal- 
mudical Hermeneutics. Its application in the discussions of 
the Gemara is less artificial than there. The phraseology used 
in setting forth this argument is: 

ANS NOs... ddaONi....Gun (ital) Niwa NOW, (Since) 
there... (in that other case of...) yousay...., could it here be 
questioned ? 

Examples: Gittin 15b; B. Bathra 4a; Maccoth 6b. 

b. iow So xd son ....OnT ADI NMwn now, if there...., 
how much the more (or the less) here. 

Examples: Yoma 2b, B. Metzia 2b; Yebamoth 32a. 

Remark. In the Agadic passages of the Talmud, the final con- 
clusion of such an argument is generally expressed by 703 NNN by 
mp); f. ex. Gittin 35a; Nedarim 10b; Maccoth 24a. 


38. INDIRECT ARGUMENTATION. 
§ 100. 


The mode of proceeding in indirect argumentation is to 
assume the denial of the point in question or a hypothesis 
which is the contradictory of the proposition to be proved, and 
then to show that such a denial or hypothesis involves some 
false principle, or leads to consequences that are manifestly ab- 
surd. The assumed contradictory thus shown to be false, the 
original proposition must consequently be true. 

This method is very frequently applied in the Talmudic 
discussion. The phrases used in indirect argumentation are: 

a. (NWP)...9DT som s5 os for if you do not say so (i. e. 
if you deny my proposition), the difficulty or the objection is.... 


252 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


Examples: Berachoth 26b; Yoma 15a; R. Metzia 5b. 

b. (SUD)... NON NT for ifyou say... (the contrary), then... 
(objection). 

Examples: Berachoth 2b; Yoma 24b; Gittin 35b; B. 
Metzia 28b. 

C. (NWP)... YI NpoD ‘st for if it should enter your mind, 
(i. €., if you should assume the contrary...), then... (at will 
lead to the following objectionable consequence). 

Examples: Berachoth 13a; Sanhedrin 6a; B. Metzia 5b. 

Indirect arguments are often introduced by the phrase 
S12Mo it is proved by the following reasoning... or %$3 957 
s1anpp it may thus also be proved by reasoning..... 

The conclusion from an indirect argument is generally ex- 
pressed by 1x5 NOs is it then not...? or m5999 pow ond xds 
is it then not to be concluded herefrom... (the correctness of 
the proposition which was to be proved)? In direct arguments, 
the phrase is simply: m3 pow. 

Remark. Arguments introduced by x nanDy 9 "57 or by xp 
3 are generally regarded conclusive. As to the exceptions, see To- 
saphoth Yoma 84a, s. v. »”9n and Tosaphoth Sebachim 18a and 
Chullin 67b, 8. v. 15 NP’. 


4, DIRECT AND INDIRECT ARGUMENTS COMBINED. 


SHY, 


To support a proposition against the contrary view of an 
opponent, the Talmud often uses a combination of direct and 
indirect arguments, by referring to an authority, and showing 
it to be in harmony with the proposition and in disharmony 
with the contradictory. The phrases used in such argument- 
ations are: 

a. (DY)... NDIWS ANON ON (=NNON ON NDdp) 
(Sa) nos on Nos 
it is well, if you say... (if you accept my proposition), then every 
thing is all right; but ifyou say... (the contradictory), then... 
(you meet some difficulty). 


ARGUMENTATION. 253 


Examples: Berachoth 26h; Sabbath 23a; B. Metzia 3a. 
Davi Ol) 3b se, 79 Nowa 
wp... TTD NON 
it is well according to my view....; but according to your 
view... (there is a difficulty). 
Examples: Yoma 4a; Pesachim 46b; Moed Katon 2b. 
c. Gen) yew ....esT nnd xoby 
NWP... WONT INDI NON 
it is well according to him who holds....; but according to him 
who holds....(the contrary view)....(there is the difficulty). 
Examples: Berachoth 41a; Yoma 40a; B. Kamma 22a, 


CHAPTER XL 
REFUTATION. 


DEFINITION AND TERMS. 
Sel U2: 


A refutation consists either in proving that a given pro- 
position is false, or in overthrowing the arguments by which 
it has been supported. In the first case, it is termed: snsyp 
(the Aramaic word for the Hebrew paiwn an answer, gainsay- 
ing, refutation), and in the second case: s57%5 (from the verb 
775 to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, to destroy, to in- . 
validate), or: m°n7 (from the verb %47 to push aside, to over- 
throw to supersede). 


A. THE REFUTATION OF A PROPOSITION, 
Ses, 


The strongest argument against a proposition advanecd 
by an Amora is to show that it conflicts with the authoritative 
decision laid down in a Mishna or a Baraitha. Such a refuta- 
tion is generally introduced by: m=msx, or dD sony, or 
s97°; see above § 86b. 

A proposition is refuted indirectly by showing that, assum- 
ing it to be true, a certain passage ofa Mishna or Baraitha 
bearing on that subject ought to have been expressed differently 
or could not well be explained. The phrases mostly used in 
Such negative argumentation after quoting such a passage are: 

a. (SLD) Gabbe cbepebley conse FADS ON} now, if you say.. (main- 
tain your proposition), then... (we meet with a difficulty). 

Examples: Gittin 53a; Kiddushin 32a; B. Metzia 10a. 

b. (NWP) ...JAYT NPD Ni now, if you assume... (your 
proposition to be true), then... 

Examples: Sabbath 7b; Betza 9b; B. Metzia 10b. 

C. (SWD) ... NTN ON now, if it were so.. (as you main- 
tain), then.... 

Examples: R. Hashana 3b; Pesachim 25a, Betza 18a. 


REFUTATION. 255 


Remark. A proposition is also refuted indirectly by proving the 
truth of its contradictory. The confirmation of one of two antagonis- 
tic opinions is thus the virtual refutation of the other, and vice versa. 
Hence the Talmudic phrases: (3) nda xnav (8) wndpd m5 yep 
this Mishna is a support (confirmation) of the opinion of A, and a 
refutation of the (opposite) opinion of B; f. ex, Yebamoth 53a, and: 
(3) s9y505 syyr05 (&) 19595 an» he refuted A in support of B; f. 
ex., Yoma 42b; B. Bathra 45b; Chullin 10a; Zebachim 10a. 


B. REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS. 


§ 104. 


Such refutations are very often introduced by the phrase: 

9955 5 mpna a certain teacher asked a strong question 
against this (argument)....; (f ex., Sabbath 4a; R. Hashana 
13a; Sanhedrin 4a; Maccoth 3a). Occasionally, it is introduced 
by: .../B J" a certain teacher refuted this argument (f. ex. 
Kiddushin 13a; Yebamoth 24a; Shebuoth 41b), or...’b 72 73 
a certain teacher ridiculed this argument, in showing its ab- 
surdity (Sabbath 62b: Kidd. 71b; Sanhedrin 3b; Aboda Zara 
35a; Zebachim 12a).’ 


1) The term pnd (from pn to overpower, t» attack; hence, 
to overthrow. to confute an argument,) is mostly used only in re- 
ference to refuting questions asked by the later Amoraim from the 
time of Rabba and Rab Joseph, though in Temura ‘a it is exceptionally 
applied to a question raised by Resh Lakish. 


“75 meaning, literally, to break into pieces, to crumble; hence, 
to invalidate an argument, to refute, is by the earlier Amoraim 
used as a term of refuting especially a Kal vechomer or a Binyan Ab 
(in the phrase sna NDN, and as a noun X59'5). Asa term of refu- 
ting any argument it is mostly used by Rab Acha. The Talmud com- 
mentators. Rashi and Tosaphoth often use the verb 745 in the general 
sense, to ask a question. 

The term 473 is mostly used by R. Abuha, and only once by R. 
Jirmija and once by R. Chanina. —Tosaphoth Yebamoth 2b, s. v. yw 
calls attention to the circumstance that some of the Amoraim used 
their own peculiar terms in setting forth a question. See Kohut’s 
Aruch Completum s. v. 573. 


256 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


The procedure of refuting a particular argument varies 
with the nature of the latter, as will be shown in the following 
paragraphs. 

§ 105. 

1. An argument from common sense (see above § 95) is 
overthrown by showing that good common sense rather sides 
with the opposite view. 

The phrase used in such counter-argument is: Ma" 
(aiso spelled NantN) on” the contrary, or more emphatically : 
NiISMD NDDS*N MIWN on the contrary, the reverse is more 
reasonable. 

Examples: Sabbath 3b; Pesachim 28a; Gittin 23b. 

Remark 1. The term 72958 or NaN (a contraction of the 
words 735% Sy, literally, on that which is greater or stronger, i. e., 
on the contrary side is a stronger argument) must not be confoun- 
ded with the words 72758 and NIW4N meaning against the view 
of Rabba or of Raba, in the phrases ; 73758 Aa N’wp Gittin 27a, 
and NIIIN NaI Nwp B. Bathra 30a. 

Remark 2. A similar meaning as the term 73795~% on the contra- 
ry, is expressed by the phrase ; 195 1955, literally: where does this turn? 
i.e., on the contrary, the opposite view is more reasonable; f. ex. Pe- 
sachim 5b; B. Metzia 58b. 


§ 106. 


2. An argument from authority, (see above § 96) is defeat- 
ed in different ways: 

a. By showing that the whole argument is based on a 
misapprehension of the passage referred to. In demonstrating 
this, either of the following phrases is used: 

N120n1 how do you reason? How can you understand that 
passage in this way? 

Examples: Pesachim 26a; Yebamoth 15a, B. Kamma 14a. 

y5...n920 4 do you think...,do you understand the pas- 
gage in this way ? It is not so, but.... 

Examples: Pesachim 29a; Kiddushin 7a, B. Metzia 32b. 

b. By showing that the authority referred to does not 


REFUTATION, 257 


necessarily concern the case under consideration. This is 
phrased either: (N3r or) onm Nw there (or, here) the case 
is different, for.... 

Examples: Pesachim 5a; Shebuoth 15a; B. Metzia 10a. 

Or: ---JU}PDY "NA Non here we treat of the special case 
Ole. 

Examples; Gittin 12a; B. Kamma 8a; B. Metzia 10b. 


c. By showing that the passage referred to is not autho- 
ritative, as it only expresses the individual opinion of one 
Mishna Teacher, disputed by another authority. 

SOMOS ID ASAT NM he holds it with that other teacher 
peeleex ee Maccotls lOb: 122. 

Or: y1n....35D 13 NM whose opinion is here accepted ? 
that of....; fex., Sabbath 11b; Pesachim 32a; B. Kamma 10a. 

Or: ST °NIN concerning this matter, the Tanaim differ. 

Examples: R, Hashana 19b; Detza 9a; B. Metzia 62a. 


§ 107. 


3. <An argument from a close construction or from implica- 
tion (see above § 97) is refuted by showing it to be too arbitra- 
ry, as the same construction, if applied to another clause of 
the same passage, would result ina contradiction of the con- 
clusious from the two clauses. 

This refutation is mostly introduced by: (Nw°") NDI NOS 
tell me the other clause... (and apply to it the same construc- 
tion).... 

The result of this counter-argument is often added in the 
phrase: 

mm pown> sooo smo eds hence nothing can be proved 
herefrom. 

Examples: Kiddushin 5b; Yebamoth 76b; B. Metzia 26b. 


§ 108. 


4. An argument from analogy (see above § 98) is refuted 
by impugning the premise, in showing that the resemblance 


258 TERMINOLOGY AND METHUDOLOGY. 


between the two cases is merely superficial, or that points of 
difference have been overlooked which vitiate the analogy. 
The phrases used in such refutations are: 


a NST... DTD are the two cases alike? there.... 
here.... 


Examples: Sabbath 6a; Kiddushin 7a; Gittin 3a. 
be .ORSA. DAT SAW ID zew, ts his sol 1.6.18 this anaes 


logy correct? There....; but htre.... 
Examples: Berachoth 21a; R. Hashana 28a; Kiddushin 7a. 


Remark. The phrase 95 % is used in refuting an analogy which 
was intended to support a proposition, while that of Xnwnr DN in re- 
futing the analogy on which an objection to a proposition was based. 
In other words, the former phrase is mostly applied in attacking a pro- 
position, and the latter in repelling such an attack. 


C. NOVNTD NTUSIYSTD NT NMS OTD does this prove any- 
thing? This case as it is, and the other case, as ttis ; 1. @., the two 
cases are not as analogous as you presume, since the circum- 
stances are quite different. 


Examples: Succah 43b; Gittin 33a: B. Metzia 14b. 


Remark. This phrase is applied especially in refuting an analogy 
based on the parallelism or the juxtaposition of two cases in one and 
the same Mishna paragraph (N5°D) Xw"). 


§ 109. 


5. An indirect argument (see above § 100) is often refut- 
ed by a counter-argument, showing that a similar objection, as 
had been raised against the contradictory proposition, might 
also be raised against the original proposition. To remove the 
latter objection, a distinction must necessarily be made, but this 
distinction at the same time removes the objection against the 
contradictory proposition, and thus destroys the whole indirect 
argument. 


The phrases used in introducing such a counter-argu- 
ment are: 


REFUTATION 259 


@ (...92 (WN) (7 NMI 1) ...Joyd) but according to 
your own opinion... (does it agree with the passage re 
ferred to?) (is there not also an objection to be raised ie) 

Examples: Yoma 8b; Posachim 19b; Betza 8a. 

b. (sw) 5793) (? NNPTD) sp x53 and what then?.. 
(shall it be so as you say? i. e. do you want me to accept 
your proposition ?) but also against this the objection is... 

Examples: Berachoth 27a; Betza 18a: B. Metzia 3a, 

Remark. The words *x19 xbx introducing such a counter-argu- 
ment must not be confounded with the same words in a different 
connection in which they are to be translated by: what then is...? 
what then means? as: \n\X *ND NSN “but what means the expres 
sion \n\x ‘(Rosh Hashana 22b), or in the frequent phrase: »~p sox 
spd 72 ms “but what then remains for you to say? (Yoma 8b). 


In Rosh flashana 18a, we find on the same page the words 3~p xx 
in three different connections and meanings. 


$ 110. 


6. A mode of refutation very frequently applied in the 
Talmudical discussions, consists in showing that the advanced 
argument, if admitted at all, would prove too much, that 
is, it proves, besides the intended conclusion, another which 
is manifestly inadmissible. The characteristic phrases used 
in this mode of invalidating an argument are: 

Ba 93...10DN DM ON tf so, even... Aso Pere. wie onat 
urgument (or conclusion) were correct, its consequences 
ought also to extend to that other case of... to which, 
however, they do not extend. 

Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 7b; Betza 8b. 

b. og ...159DS EITM NI) BSP Che a2) i sOy CU Se 
teaching... (this case) ? since it ought to apply also to the 
CAsee Ole. 

Examples: Berachoth 16b; Betza 8a; Gittin 10a. 


§ 111. 


7. A similar but more effective mode of overthrowing an 
argument is, to introduce another analogous case where the 


260 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


application of that argument would lead to a palpable absur- 
dity. 

The phraseology of this kind of refutation is: 

305m... mayo sos but now (according to your argument. 
or conclusion), can it apply also to that other case of... ? 

Examples: Berachoth 13a; Pesachim 5a; Gittin 23a. 


§ 112. 


8. Propositions as well as arguments are often refuted by 
the objection that the advanced opinion is without parallel and 
example, and against common sense, or against the establish- 
ed principles in law. 

wT "TD NDS UW is there anything like this, that...? 


Examples: Yoma 2b; Betza 13b; Sanhedrin 55a. 
§ 113. 


9. Amild and polite mode of refuting an argument is that 
which, instead of a decided objection, merely intimates a certain 
possibility which would invalidate the argument under consider- 
ation. Such refutations are introduced either by. ....ND‘S} 
but I might say...; f ex. Yoma 2b, or, by... idem) but per- 
haps....; f ex. Sabbath 5a; B. Metzia 8b. 

The answer to such a mild objection or refutation is often: 
"Nyt Np2D N°} this cannot enter thy mind, i. e., you can impos- 
sibly think so, since...; f. ex., R. Hashana 13a. 


CHAPTER XII. 
THE DEBATE. 


1. DEFINITION AND TERMS. 
§ 114. 


Besides the minor discussions to be found almost on 
every page ofthe Talmud, and consisting either of a query, 
an answer, and a rejoinder, or of an argument, an objection, 
and a defense, the Talmud contains also numerous more 
elaborate discussions or debates in which two or more 
teachers holding different opinions on a certain question 
contend with each other in mutual argumentation, Such an 
interchange of arguments between opposing parties is 
termed S12} Nopw (literally, taking up and throwing back, 
namely, arguments). A debate displaying great dialectical 
acumen is termed 53555. These debates generally concern 
either the interpretation and application of a provision of 
the Mishna, ora new principle of law advanced by an Amora. 


2. THE PRINCIPAL DEBATERS. 
$116: 


The debates recorded in the Talmud are generally between 
the associate memberg of an academy, or between a teacher 
and his prominent disciples. The most noted among them 
are the following: 

R. Jochanan with Resh Lakish. 

Rab Huna with Rab Nachman; also with Rab Shesheth 
and Rab Chisda. 

Rab Nachman with Rab Shesheth; also with Raba. 

Rab Chisda with Rab Schesheth; also with Rab Nach- 
man b. Isaac. 

Rabba with Rab Joseph; also with Raba and with Abaye. 

Raba with Abaye, and both of them also with Rab 
Papa and with Rabina I. 

Abaye with Rab Dime. 


262 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY. 


Rab Ashe with Amemar, also with Rabina, with Mar Zutra 
and Rab Acha. 

Of most of the other numerous Amoraim only opinions, 
remarks, traditions and occasional discussions, but no formal 
debates are recorded in the Talmud. 

Some contemporary authorities, as Rab and Mar Samuel, 
though widely differing from each other in many legal questions, 
are rarely (f. i, B. Kamma 75a; Aboda Zarah 36a) mentioned 
as having been personally engaged in debates with each other. 
But their differences of opinion are frequently quoted, and 
made a basis of academical discussions between the teachers 
of later generations. 


3. ILLUSTRATION OF DEBATES. 


§ 116. 


Ihe following synopsis of a debate between Rabba and 
Kab Joseph, the former being seconded by Abaye, may serve 
to illustrate the usual procedure in the Talmudical controver- 
sies. 

In Baba Kamma 56b the question is as to the degree of 
legal responsibility of ATaN ADiw, that is, ofthe keeper of a 
lost object waiting for its owner to claim it. 

Rabba maintains that the responsibility of that keeper is 
only that of a gratutous depositary (o3n 7Diw) who is not 
liable for the loss of the object entrustcd to his care, except in 
the case of gross negligence. 

Rab Joseph holds that he has the greater responsibility of 
a paid depositary ("Dw DIN’) who is lable for all losses ex- 
cept those caused by inevitable accident. ; 

The reasons for each of these two opinions are stated. 

Rab Joseph opens the debate with the attempt to refute 
the opinion of his opponent (A215 oY aVmann) by showing 
it to be in conflict with a passage in the Mishna. 

Rabba parries this attack by construing that Mishna pas. 
sage differently. 


THE DEBATE. } 263 


R. J. objects to this construction. 

Rabba removes the objection. 

R. J. renews his attack by appealing to a Baraitha from 
which he infers that the keeper of a lost object has the greater 
responsibility of a paid depositary. 

Rabba admits the correctness of this inference in the special 
case mentioned in that Baraitha, but denies its general applica- 
tion to the question at issue. 

After having thus far been successful on the defensive, 
Rabba assumes the offensive (qD1° 375 Asi msm), by calling 
attention to another Baraitha which he dialectically interprets 
in such a way as to be a refutation of his opponent’s opinion. 

R. J. overthrows the refutation by showing that there was 
no necessity for construing this Baraitha just in the way as 
done by his opponent. 

Now, Abaye, a disciple of Rabba, enters the arena to sec- 
ond the opinion of his master. Addressing himself to the op- 
ponent of the latter, he quotes a reported decision of the 
acknowledged authority of one of the former Amoraim in Pales- 
tine (R.Jochanan) from which decision he, by indirect reasoning, 
draws the conclusion that the keeper of a lost object has only 
the responsibility of a gratuitous depositary. 

Rab Joseph rejects this conclusion by restricting the deci- 
sion of the quoted authority to certain circumstances which 
alter the case. 

Abaye denies that the case is altered even under the sup- 
posed circumstances, and the discussion continues without 
leading to a definite result. But later authorities decided in 
favor of Rab Joseph’s opinion which is adopted in the Rabbi- 
Aical codes. 

Other examples of such debates are furnished: Yoma 
6b—7Tb; Pesachim 46b—47a; Moed Katon 2b; Kiddushin 
59a; Gittin 32b—33a; Nedarim 25b—27a; B. Kamma 6la— 
62a; B. Metzia 43a; B. Bathra 45a—46a. 


Remark. Different from these debates in which two Amoraim 
holding opposite opinions argue personally against each other, are the 


264 TERMINOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 


discussions of the Gemara ona reported difference between autlor.ties 
of a former generation (f. ex. Gittin 2a sqq.) in which discussions, ar 
guments for and against either of those authorities are advanced, 
refuted or defended. See above §§ 74—80. 


4. ANONYMOUUS DISCUSSIONS AND DEBATES. 
Seis 


Dicussions and debates are, as a rule, reported very care- 
fully with the names of those engaged therein. But in nu- 
merous instances, the names are omitted, so that either a 
question or an answer, or both ofthem are reported anonymously. 
Sometimes, a lengthy discussion carried on anonymously is in- 
terrupted by an answer made by an authority mentioned by 
name, At other times again, a debate started by named 
authorities is continued anonymously. 

The omission of names in a discussion is probably indicative 
that this was a general discussion among the members of the 
academy, while only the questions and answers of the prominent 
teachers were recorded with the names of their authors. 

In consequence of the succinct and elliptical mode ot 
expression, so prevalent in the Talmud, and in the absence of 
all punctuation marks, the anonymous discussions especially, 
often offer great and perplexing difficulties to the inexperienced 
student, as question and answer are there sometimes so closely 
connected that it requires a considerable practice in Talmud 
reading to discern where the one ends and the other begins. 


A tae Ve 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHIC8. 









WS eas | ae 
mer S| 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


Ethics is the flower and fruit on the tree of religion. 
The ultimate aim of religion is to ennoble man’s inner 
and outer life, so that he may love and do that only 
which is right and good. This is a biblical teaching which is 
emphatically repeated in almost every book of Sacred Scrip- 
tures. Let me only refer to the sublime word of the pro- 
phet Micah: ‘‘He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, 
and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justice 
and to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God.‘ 
(Micah -vi,.43). 

As far as concerns the Bible, its ethical teachings are 
generally known. Translated into all languages of the world, 
that holy book is accessible to every one, and whoever 
reads it with open eyes and with an unbiased mind will 
admit that it teaches the highest principles of morality, 
nrinciples which have not been surpassed and _ superseded 
by any ethical system of ancient or modern philosophy. 

But how about the Talmud, that immense literary work 
whose authority was long esteemed second to that of the 
Bible ? What are the ethical teachings of the Talmud ? 

Although mainly engaged with discussions of the Law, 
as developed on the basis of the Bible during Israel’s se- 
cond commonwealth down to the sixth century of the 
Christian era, the Talmud devotes also much attention to 
ethical subjects. Not only are one treatise of the Mishna 
(Pirke Aboth) and some Baraithoth (as, Adoth @R. Nathan, 
and Derech Eretz) almost exclusively occupied with ethical 
teachings, but such teachings are also very abundantly 
contained in the Aggadic (homiletical) passages which are 
so frequently interspersed in the legal discussions throughout 
all parts of the Talmud.' 

1 Also the Midrash, a post-Talmudic collection of extracts 
from popular lectures of the ancient teachers on _ Biblical texts, 
contains an abundance of ethical teachings 1nd maxims advanced 


by the sages of the Talmud, which must likewise be taken into 
consideration, when speaking of Talmudical Ethics. 


268 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


It must be borne in mind that the Talmudical litera- 
ture embraces a period of about eight centuries, and that 
the numerous teachers whose ethical views and utterances 
are recorded in that vast literature, rank differently in re- 
gard to mind and authority. At tbe side of the great lumi- 
naries, we find also lesser ones. At the side of utterances 
of great, clear-sighted and broad-minded masters with 
lofty ideas, we meet also with utterances of peculiar views — 
which never obtained authority. Not every ethical remark 
or opinion quoted in that literature can, therefore, be re- 
garded as an index of the standard of Talmudical ethics, 
but such opinions only can be so regarded which are 
expressed with authority and which are in harmony with 
the general spirit that pervades the Talmudic literature. 


Another point to be observed is the circumstance that 
the Talmud does not treat of ethics in a coherent, philo- 
sophical system. The Talmudic sages made no claim of 
being philosophers; they were public teachers, expounders 
of the Law, popular lecturers. As such, they did not care 
for a methodically arranged system. All they wanted was to 
spread among the people ethical teachings in single, concise, 
pithy, pointed sentences, well adapted to impress the minds 
and hearts, or in parables or legends illustrating certain moral 
duties and virtues. And this, their method, fully answered 
its purpose. Their ethical teachings did actually reach the 
Jewish masses, and influenced their conduct of life, while 
among the Greeks, the ethical theories and systems re- 
mained a matter that concerned the philosophers only, 
without exercising any educating influence upon the mas- 
Ses at large. 


Furthermore, it must be remembered that the Talmu- 
dical ethics is largely based on the ethics of the Bible. 
The sacred treasure of biblical truth and wisdom was in 
the minds and hearts of the Rabbis. This treasury they 
tried to enrich by their own wisdom and observation. Here 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 269 


they develop a principle contained in a scriptural passage, 
and give it a wider scope and a larger application to 
life’s various conditions. There they crystallize great moral 
ideas into a pithy, impressive maxim as guide for hunan 
conduct. Here they give to a jewel of biblical ethics a 
new lustre by setting it in the gold of their own wisdom. 
There again they combine single pearls of biblical wisdom 
to a graceful ornament for human life. 

Let us now try to give a few outlines of the ethical 
teachings of the ‘lalmud. In the first place, concerning 


MAN AS A MORAL BEING. 


In accordance with the teaching of the Bible, the rab- 
bis duly emphasize man’s dignity as a being created in the 
likeness of God.’ By this likeness of God they understand 
the spiritual being within us, that is endowed with intel- 
lectual and moral capacities. The higher desires and inspi- 
rations which spring from this spiritual being in man, are 
called Yetzer ¢ob, the good inclination; but the lower appe- 
tites and desires which rise from our physical nature and 
which we share with the animal creation, are termed Yedzer 
ha-ra, the inclination to evil.2 Not that these sensuous de- 
sires are absolutely evil; for they, too, have been implant- 
ed in man for good purposes. Without them man could 
not exist, he would not cultivate and populate this 
earth *, cr, as a Talmudical legend runs: Once, some 
overpious people wanted to pray to God that they 
might be able to destroy the Yetzer ha-ra, but a war- 
ning voice was heard, saying: ‘‘Beware, lest you destroy 
this world !’* Evil are those lower desires only in that 


1 Aboth I, 14: R. Akiba used to say: ‘‘How distinguished 
is man, since created in the image of God, and still more dis- 
tinguished by the consciousness of having been created in the 
image of God !” 

? Mishna Berachoth IX,5: yy ay ah aNd AY JY wa 

3 Midrash R. Bereshith IX: 45) any “Ooxw pray ar aNe nwo a3 

‘ Yoma 69b: .xody sda mS imbSep ont oun 


270 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


they, if unrestrained, easily mislead man to live contrary 
to the demands and aspirations of his divine nature. Hence 
the constant struggle in man between the two inclinations.! 
He who submits his evil inclination to the control of his 
higher aims and desires, is virtuous and righteous. ‘‘The 
righteous are governed by the Yefzer tod, but the wicked 
by the Yetzer ha-ra.* ‘The righteous have their desires in 
their power, but the wicked are in the power of their 
desires.’ 


FREE-WILL. 


Man’s free will is emphasized in the following sentences: 
‘“Hverything is ordained by God’s providence, but freedom 
of choice is given to man.’* ‘Everything is foreordained 
by heaven, except the fear of heaven’”’ or, as another 
sage puts it: Whether man be strong or weak, rich or poor, 
wise or foolish depends mostly on circumstances that 
surround him from the time of his birth, but whether man 
be good or bad, righteous or wicked, depends upon his own 
free will.* 


Gop’s WILL, THE GROUND OF MAN’S DUTIES. 
} 


The ground of our duties, as presented to us by the 
Talmudical as well as the biblical teachings, is that it is 
the will of God. His will is the supreme rule of our being. 
“Do His will as thy own will, submit thy will to His 


Lt iat 


will’.” ‘Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift 


as aroe, and strong as a lion, to dothe will of thy Father, 


39,3 


who is in heaven’. 
MAN ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD FoR HIS CONDUCT. 
Of man’s responsibility for the conduct of his life, we 


1 Kiddushin 30b: py 593 ySy wine ote by ny. Berachoth 5b: 
wins Sy aw oy ote pi diy 
2 Berachoth 61b. 3 Midrash Bereshith X XXIII. 
‘ Aboth ITI, 15. °® Berachoth 38a. * Nidda 16b. 
TTA DOtn ML, 47 bid fey acs 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDIOCAL ETHICS. 271 


are forcibly reminded by numerous sentences, as: ‘Consider 
three things, and thou wilt never fall into sin; remember 
that there is above thee an all-seeing eye, an all hearing 
ear, and a record of all thy actions’. And again, ‘‘Con- 
sider three things, and thou wilt never sin; remember whence 
thou comest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt 
have to render account for thy doings.” 


HIGHER MoTIVES IN PERFORMING OUR DUTIES. 


Although happiness here and hereafter is promised as 
reward for fulfillment, and punishment threatened for neglect 
of duty, still we are reminded not to be guided by the con- 
sideration of reward and punishment, but rather by love 
and obedience to God, and by love to that which is good 
and noble. ‘‘Be not like servants, who serve their master 
for the sake of reward.”* ‘‘Whatever thou doest, let it 
be done in the name of heaven’ (that is, for its own 
sake). 


Duty OF SELF-PRESERVATION AND SELF-CULTIVATION. 


As a leading rule of the duties of se/f-preservation and 
self-cultivation, and, at the same time, as a warning against 
selfishness, we have Hillel’s sentence: ‘If I do not care 
for myself, who will do it for me? and if I care only for 
myself, what am [ ?’ 

The duty of acquiring knowledge, especially knowledge of 
the divine Law (Thora) which gives us a clearer insight in 
God’s will to man, is most emphatically enjoined in nume- 
rous sentences: ‘‘Without knowledge there is no true moral- 
ity and piety.” ‘‘Be eager to acquire knowledge, it does 
not come to thee by inheritance”.’ “The more knowledge, 
the more spiritual life.”’ ‘‘If thou hast acquired knowledge, 
what doest thou lack? but if thou lackest knowledge, what 





DOL ie tee Lids LL ats 
STA DOC aba wel ids Liat Samat old,, 1014, 
SMIDICVeLL ADs) eh Dilew L. Loe eLDIGser lot. 


OTD OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAY, ETHICS. 


hast thou acquired ?”! But we are also reminded that even 
the highest knowledge is of no value, as long as it does 
not influence our moral life. ‘The ultimate end of all 
knowledge and wisdom is man’s inner purification and the 
performance of good and noble deeds.’? ‘He whose know- 
ledge is great without influencing his moral life, is compared 
to a tree that has many branches, but few and weak roots; 
a storm cometh and overturneth it.’” 


GEASBYOER, 

Next to the duty of acquiring knowledge, that of zndust- 
rious labor and useful activity is strongly enjoined. It is 
well known that among the ancient nations in general, 
manual labor was regarded as degrading the free citizen. 
Kven the greatest philosophers of antiquity, a Plato and 
Aristotle, could not free themselves of this deprecating view 
of labor.‘ How different was the view of the Talmudic sages 
in this respect! They say: ‘Love labor, and hate to be a 
-lord.”*® “Great is the dignity of labor; it honors man.’’s 
‘Beautiful is the intellectual occupation, if combined with 
some practical work.’’ ‘(He who does not teach his son a 
handicraft trade, neglects his parental duty.”* ‘(He who lives 
on the toil of his hands, 1s greater than he who indulges 
in idle piety.’” 

In accordance with these teachings, some of the most 
prominent sages of the Talmud are known to have made 
their living by various kinds of handicraft and trade. 


CARDINAL DUTIES IN RELATION TO FELLOW-MEN. 


Regarding man’s relation to fellow-men, the rabbis 
consider justice, truthfulness, peaceableness and charity as 
cardinal duties. They say, ‘‘The world (human society) 
rests on three things—on justice, on truth and on peace.’ 


} Midrash Levit. I: map AD MIDN AY WMIDN AY DD Dalal 

* Berachoth 1%a. * Aboth III, 17. 

* Arist. Polit. VIII, 3. * AbothI,10. * Gittin 67a; Nedarim 49a, 
* Aboth II, 2. *Kiddushin 29a. ° Berachoth 8a. 

% Aboth I, 18, 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS Dera. 


JmUESe Tet Oun: 


The principle of jws/ice in the moral sense is expressed 
in the following rules: ‘‘Thy neighbor’s property must be 
as sacred to thee, as thine own.”' ‘Thy neighbor’s honor 
must be as dear to thee, as thine own.’* Hereto belongs 
also the golden rule of Hillel: ‘‘Whatever would be hateful 
to thee, do not to thy neighbor.’® 


TRUTH AND TRUTHFULNESS. 


The sacredness of ¢ruth and truthfulness is expressed in 
the sentence: ‘‘Truth is the signet of God, the Most Holy.’ 
suet thy years be in truth; and thy nay . bein truth.’” 
‘Truth lasts forever, but falschood must vanish.’ 

Admonitions concerning fazthfulness and fidelity to given 
promises are: ‘‘Promise little and do much."”’ "To he faith- 
less to a given promise is as sinful as idolatts.’* “To break 
a verbal engagement, though legally not binding, is a mor- 
al wrong.”* Of the numerous warnings against any kind 
of deceit, the following may be mentioned: ‘It is sinful to 
deceive any man, be he even a heathen.’?° ‘“‘Deception in 
words is as great a sin as deception in money matters.’”!! 
When, says the Talmud, the immortal soul will be called to 
account before the divine tribunal, the first question will 
be, ‘hast thou been honest and faithful in all thy dealinys 
with thy fellow-men ?”!? 


PEACEFULNESS. 


Peace and harmony in domestic life and social inter- 
course as well as in public affairs are considered by the 
Talmudic sages as the first condition of human welfare and 
happiness, or as they express it: ‘‘Peace is the vessel in 
which all God’s blessings are presented to us and preserved 


1 [bid. II, 12. ? Ibid. II, 10. * Sabbath 30a. 

‘ Sabbath 45a, ° B. Metzia 45a.. ® Sabbath 104a. 7 Aboth I, 15. 
® Sanhedrin 92a. ° B. Metzia 48a. ?°Chullin 94a, 7! B. Metzia 58b. 
12 Sabbath 28b. 


274 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHSS. 


by us.”? ‘Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace, and _ pur- 
suing peace.”? To make peace between those in disharmony 
is regarded as one of the most meritorious works that 
secure happiness and bliss here and hereafter.’ 

As virtues leading to peace, those of mzldness and 
meekness, Of gentleness and fplacidity are highly praised 
and recommended. ‘‘Be not easily moved to anger’* ‘‘Be 
humble to thy superior, affable to thy inferior, and meet 
every man with friendliness.”*® ‘He who is slow to anger, and 
easily pacified, is truly pious and virtuous.”® ‘Man, be ever 
soft and pliant like a reed, and not hard and unbendiug like 
the cedar.”’ ‘Those who, when offended, do not give offence, 
when hearing shighting remarks, do not retaliate—they are 
the friends of God, they shall shine forth like the sun in 
its glory.”* 

CHARITY. 


The last of the principal duties to fellow-men is charity, 
which begins where justice leaves off. Prof. Steinthal in his 
work on General Ethics, remarks, that among the cardinal virt- 
ues of the ancient philosophers, we look in vain for the idea 
of Jove and charity, whereas in the teachings of the Bible, we 
generally find the idea of love, mercy and charity closely con- 
nected with that ofjustice.’ And we may add, as in the Bible 
so also inthe Talmud, where charity is considered as the highest 
degree on the scale of duties and virtues. It is one of the main 
pillars on which the welfare of the human world rests.’° 


The duty of charity (Gemilath Chesed) extends farther 
than to mere amsgiving (Tzedaka). ‘‘Almsgiving is practiced 
by means of money, but charity also by personal services and | 
by words of advice, symphaty and encouragement. Alms- 
giving isa duty towards the poor only, but charity towards 


!Mishna Oketzin Ji, 12.5.7 Aboth wil, 12: 

*Mishna Peah I, t. tA both If,.10,5" 1bid? IT ioe ibid avers 
' Taanith 20b. * Yoma 23; Gittin 3hb, — 

* Allgemeine Ethik. p. 108. 3° Aboth I, 2. 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS, 275 


the rich as well as the poor, nay, even towards the dead 
(by taking care of their decent burial)” 

By works of charity man proves to be a true image of God 
whose atributes are love, kindness and mercy.* ‘He who 
turns away from works of love and charity turns away from 
God”.* ‘*The works of charity have more value than sacrifices; 
they are equal to the performance of all religious duties.’”* 

Concerning the proper way of practicing this virtue, the 
Talmnd has many beautiful sentences, as: ‘The merit of cha- 
ritable works is in proportion to the love with which they 
are practiced.”* ‘Blessed is he who gives from his substance 
to the poor, twice blessed he who accompanies his gift with 
kind, comforting words’.* ‘The noblest of all charities is en- 
abling the poor to earn a livelihood”.’ He who is unable to 
give much, shall not withhold his little mite, for ‘‘as a garment 
is made up of single threads, so every single gift contributes 
to accomplish a great work of charity”.° 


DUTIES CONCERNING SPECIAL RELATIONS. 


Besides these principal duties in relation to fellow-men in 
general, the Talmud treats also very elaborately of duties con- 
cerning the various relations of life. Not intending to enter 
here into all details, we shall restrict ourselves to some of its 
ethical teachings in reference to the domestic relations, and 
regarding the relation to the country and the community. 


THE CONJUGAL RELATION. 


‘First build a house and plant a vineyard (i. e., provide 
for the means of the household), and then take a wife”’.’ ‘Let 
youth and old age not be joined in marriage, lest the purity 
and peace of domestic life be disturbed’””’ ‘‘A man’s home means 


1 Succah 49b. 

* Sotah 14a. * Kethuboth 6la. ‘ Succah 49a; B. Bathra 9a. 
§ Succah 49a. * BR. Bathra 9b. 7 Sabbath 68a. * B. Bathra l0b. 
° Sotah 44a, 1° Sanhedrin 76a. 


276 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


his wife.” ‘Let a man be careful to honor his wife, for he 
owes to her alone all the blessings of his house”.* “If thy 
wife is small, bend down to her, to take counsel from her”.s 
‘(Who is rich ? He who has a noble wife.”* ‘‘A manshould be 
careful lest he afflict his wife, for God counts her tears.’® “If 
in anger the one hand removed thy wife or thy child, let the 
other hand again bring them back to thy heart.”* ‘He who 
loves his wife as his own Self, and honors her more than 
himself, and he who educates his children in the right way, 
to him applies the divine promise: Thou shalt know that 
there is peace in thy tent.”” ‘Tears are shed on God’s altar 
for the one who forsakes the wife of his youth.’® ‘He who 
divorces his wife, is hated before God”’.’ 


PARENTS AND CHILDREN. 


“Parental love should be impartial, one child must not be 
preferred to the other”.’” “It is a father’s duty not only to 
provide for his minor children, but also to take care of their 
instruction, and to teach his son a trade and whatever is ne- 
cessary for his future welfare’... ‘The honor and reverence 
due to parents are equal to the honor and reverence due to 
God”.'* “Where children honor their parents, there God dwels, 
there He is honored’)* 


COUNTRY AND COMMUNITY. 


Regarding duties to the country and the community, the 
Rabbis teach: ‘Che law of the country is as sacred and bind- 
ing as God’s law”."* ‘Pray for the welfare of the government, 
without respect for the government, men would swallow each 
other”.”” “Do not isolate thyself from the community and 
its interests”.’® ‘It is sinful to deceive the government regard- 


1 Yoma 2a. ? B. Metzia 59a. * Ibid. * Sabbath 25b. 

° B. Metzia 59a. * Sota 47a. 7 Yebamoth 62b. *® Gittin 90b. 

* Ibid. '° Sabbath 10b. *! Kiddushin 29a. 12 Ibid 29b. 

1° Tbid 80a. '* Gittin 19b; Nedarim 28a; B. Kamma 1l3a; B. 
Bathra 54b. 1° Aboth JII, 2. '* Ibid II, 4. 


OUTLINES Of TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 277 


ing taxes and duties’.! ‘Do not aspire for public offices’; 
‘but where there are nomen, try thou to be the man”.’ 
“Those who work for the community shall do it without self- 
‘ishness, but with the pure intention to promote its wel- 
HEWES ah 

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. 


To these short outlines of Talmudical ethics let us add 
only a few general remarks. Being essentially a development of 
the sublime ethical principles and teachings of the Bible, the 
Talmudical ethics retains the general characteristics of that 
origin. 

It teaches nothing that is against human nature, nothing 
that is incompatible with the existence and welfare of human 
society. It is free from the extreme excess and austerity to 
which the lofty ideas of religion and morality were carried 
by the theories and practices of some sects inside and outsile 
of Judaism. 


Nay, many Talmudical maxims and sayings are evidently 
directed against such austerities and extravagances. Thus 
they warn against the monastic idea of obtaining closer 
communion with God by fleeing from human society and 
by seclusion from temporal concerns of life: ‘‘Do not sepa- 
rate thyself from society.” ‘‘Man’s thoughts and ways shall 
always be in contact and sympathy with fellow-men.”* ‘‘No 
one shall depart from the general customs and manners.”’ 
‘Better is he who lives on the toil of his hand, than he who 
indulges in idle piety.’”® 

They strongly discountenance the idea of ce/zbacy, which 
the Essenes, and later, some orders of the Church regarded 
as a superior state of perfection. The rabbis say: ‘‘He who 
lives without a wife is no perfect man.’ ‘‘To be unmarried 


1 Pesachim 112b: pop jo WOyy man Ss also B. Kamina 113a 
pon mx mrad me. 

SA Donel at LO wee LOI Le eee Olde, | Leto: 

®* Aboth II, 4. * Kethuboth lla. ‘'’B. Metvia 86b. 

* Berachot 8b. *® Yebamoth 63a. 


278 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


is to live without joy, without blessing, without kindness, 
without religion and without peace.” ‘‘As soon as man mar- 
ries, his sins decrease.” 

While, on the one hand, they wurn against too much 
indulgence in pleasures and in the gratification of bodily 
appetites and against the insatiable pursuit of carthly goods 
and riches, as well as against the inordinate desire of honor 
and power, on the other hand, they strongly disapprove the 
ascetic mortification of the body and abstinence from en- 
joyment, and the cynic contempt of all luxuries that beau- 
tify life. They say: ‘‘God’s commandments are intended to 
enhance the value and enjoyment of life, but not to mar it 
and make it gloomy.” ‘If thou hast the means, enjoy life’s 
innocent pleasures.”* ‘(He who denies himself the use of wine 
is a sinner.”® “No one is permitted to afflict himself by 
unnecessary fasting.’® ‘‘The pious fool, the hypocrite, and 
the pharisaic flagellant are destroyers of human society.”’ 
‘That which beautifies life and gives it vigor and strength, 
just as riches and honor, is suitable to the pious, and 
agreeable to the world at large.” 

Finally, one more remark: The Talmud has often been 
accused of being illiberal, as if teaching its duties only for 
Jews towards fellow-believers, but not also towards fellow- 
men in general. This charge is entirely unfounded. It is 
true, and quite natural, that in regard to the ritual and ce- 
remonial law and practice, a distinction between Jew and 
Gentile was made. It is also true, that we occasionally 
meet in the Talmud with an uncharitable utterance against 
the heathen world. But it must be remembered in what 
state of moral corruption and degradation their heathen 
surroundings were, at that time. And this, too, must be 


1 Ibid. 62a, ? Ibid. 6b. 
* Yoma 85b: ona now xd) onan. * Erubin 54a: 95 mw ox 
"> aun. * Taanith lla, ‘Ibid. 22b, ’Mishna Sota III, 4. 
teenage Aboth VI, 8: oypyyyd aN2 «39m AwyM nom On 
A 


OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 279 


remembered, that such utterances are only made by individ- 
uals who gave vent to their indignation in view of the 
eruel persecutions whose victims they were. As regards 
moral teachings, the Talmud is as broad as humanity. It tea- 
ches duties of man to man without distinction of creed and 
race. In most of the ethical maxims, the terms Adam and 
Beriyot, ‘‘man,” ‘“fellow-men,” are emphatically used; as: ‘Do 
not despise any man. ‘Judge every man from his favorable 
side.” “Seek peace, and love fellow-men.”* ‘‘He who is pleas- 
ing to fellow-men is also pleasing to God.”* ‘The right way 
for man to choose, is to do that which is honorable in kis 
own eyes (i. e., approved by his conscience) and at the same 
time, honorable in the eyes of his fellow-men.”® In some in- 
stances, the Talmud expressly reminds that the duties of 
justice, veracity, peacefulness and charity are to be fulfilled 
towards the heathen as well as to the Israelites; as: “It is 
sinful to deceive any man, be he even a heathen.”* It is 
our duty to relieve the poor and needy, to visit the ae 
and bury the dead without distinction of creed and race.’ 


“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Lev. XIX, 
18); this is, said R. Akiba, the all embracing principle of 
the divine law. But Ben Asai said, there is another passage 
in Scriptures still more embracing; it is the passage (Gen, 
v, 2): ‘This is the book of the generations of man; in the 
day that God created man, he made him in the likeness of 
God.’ That sage meant to say, this passage is more embracing, 
since it clearly tells us who is our neighbor; not, as it might be 
misunderstood, our friend only, not our fellow-citizen only, not 
our co-religionist only, but since we all descend from a com- 
mon ancestor, since all are created in the image and likeness 
of God, every man, every human being is our brother, our 
neighbor whom we shall love as ourselves. 


VAboth LV, 8° Ibid. 16. * Ibid. 1, 12.) “ Tbid IIT, 10: 
* Ibid. II, 1. * Chullin $1a. 7 Gittin 61a, * Siphra on Lev. XTX, {8. 


280 OUTLINES OF TALMUDICAL ETHICS. 


The liberal spirit of Talmudic ethics is most strikingly 
evidenced in the sentence: ‘‘The pious and virtuous of all 
nations participate in the eternal bliss,’! which teaches that 
man’s salvation depends not on the acceptance of certain 
articles of belief, nor on certain ceremonial observances, but 
on that which is the ultimate aim ofreligion, namely, Aorality, 
purity of heart and holiness of life. 


'Tosephta Sanhedrin ch. XIII; Maimonides Yad Hachezaka, 
Teahuba ITI, 5; Melachim VIII, 11. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Erc. 





The initial in parenthesis following a note indicates the author: 
(M.) for Mielziner; (B.) for Dr. Joshua Bloch; (F.) for Dr. Louis 
Finkelstein, 


PAGE 


4. As to the opinions of Hoffmann, Lerner and Halevy concern- 
ing the origin of Mishna, see Strack, Einl., p. 19 f. Ginzberg 
(in Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 33 ff.) 
has proven that Tamid was the oldest treatise of the Mishna. 
Tamid and Middot, however, do not belong to the Mishna. The 
Mishna of the Tannaim consisted of only 58 tractates. (B.) 


5. When R. Jehuda Hanasi arranged the final collection of the 
Mishna, he entrusted it to the memory of R. Isaac b. Abdimi 
(or Roba)) who made some changes in it, introducing the 
opinions of his master. See Lewy, J ahresbericht, Breslau Sem- 
inary, 1905, p. 25, and Marx JQR N.S., Vol. 13, p. 353. (B.) 
Paragraph 3. 

Since several of the colleagues of R. Jehuda Ha-Nasi had 
arranged their own Mishna-systems, each of those works was 
distinguished by being called after its author. Thus the 
Mishna of Bar Kappara was the work of that scholar, the 
Mishna of R. Hiyya, was the work of another scholar of the 
same period. Some parts of these works are preserved in quo- 
tations in the Talmud, and have been incorporated into other 
books. The Mishna of R. Jehuda Ha-Nasi, being the gener- 
ally accepted code, was called Mishna, without further descrip- 
tion. (F.) 

Note. 

The question of whether the Mishna was actually committed 
to writing or not has further been discussed by the following 
authors: Jacob Bruell, Mebo Ha-Mishna, II, 10-138; Jawitz, 
Toledot Israel, p. 340ff.; and J. S. Bloch, Einblicke in der 
Gesch. der Entstehung der Talmud. Literatur, Vienna, 1884. 
The first two hold that it was committed to writing, the last 
that it was not. It is now generally believed that the Mishna 
was not committed to writing till a much later date, but that 
the scholars used private notes as an aid to their memory. See 
Marx, JQR N.S., XIII, 353. (F.) 


7. The six divisions of the Mishna are sometimes also termed 
Shesh Erke Hamishna. See Pesikta d. R. Kahana 7a and Cant. 
R. 6, 4: (B.) 

8. As to the names of the Masechtoth and the order of their ar- 

281 


282 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


11: 


Us: 


13. 


15. 


Lis 


rangement, some important notes are given by Prof. Louis 
Ginzberg in his remarkable study Tamid the Oldest Treatise 
of the Mishna; in Neumark’s Journal of Jewish Lore and 
Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 33-44, 197-209, and 265-295. (B.) 


As to the particulars concerning each Masechta listed herewith, 
consult the respective articles in the JE. (B.) 


Baba Kama. As to particulars concerning this and the two 
following Masechtoth, see the articles Baba Kamma, Baba 
Mezia and Baba Batra, in the Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 
Ce CMS) ) 

On Kethuboth cf. D. Kaufmann, Zur Geschichte der K. in 
MGWJ 41 (1897), 213-221; E. N. Adler in JE 7, 472-478; 
S. Krauss, Archeol. 2, 44; M. Gaster, Die K. bei den Samar- 
itanern, MGWJ 54 (1910), 174 ff; M. Gaster, The Kethubah, 
Berlinyel 923, saGb.) 


Eduyoth. See Herman Klueger, Ueber die Genesis und Com- 
position der Halachasammlung Edujoth, Berlin, 1898. 

Aboda Zara. See article Abodah Zarah in Jewish Encyclo- 
pedia, Vol. I, 

Aboth. See article Abot in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. 
Arachin. See article Arakin in Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 
II. (M.) 

Eduyoth. See J. H. Duenner, Ueber Ursprung u. Bedeutung 
des Tracktates Edojoth, MGWJ 20 (1871), 33-42, 59-77; H. 
Klueger, Genesis u. Composition der Halacha-Sammlung Edu- 
jot, Breslau, 1895. Cf. MGWJ 41 (1897), 278-288, 330-333; 
D. Feuchtwang, Der Zussammenhang der Mischna im Tractat 
Edujoth, Hoffmann-Festschr. 92-96. 

Aboda Zara. See P. Fiebig, ZDMG 57 (1903), 581-604; N. 
Blaufuss, Roemische Feste und Feiertage nach den Traktaten 
ueber fremden Dienst, Nuernberg, 1909. (B.) 


Middoth. See I. Hildesheimer, Die Beschreibung des hero- 
dianischen Tempels im Tractate Middoth u. bei Flavius Jose- 
phus, Berlin, 1877. 

Khelim. See D. Graubart, Le véritable auteur du traité Kélim, 
REI 82)'(1896), 1200-225... (8B) 


Addition to Bibliography in the foot note: F. Hillel, Die Nom- 
inal bildungen in der Mischna. Frankf. a. M., 1891. 

H. Sachs, Die Partikel der Mischna, Berlin, 1897. (M.) 

Note 1. 

To the list of works on the language of the Mishna, must now 
be added Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical 
Hebrew, JQR XX, 617-737. (F.) 


Chapter II. 
The sixty treatises of the Tosefta are not identical with those 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 283 


PAGE 


18. 


of the Mishna. There is no Tosefta to Abot, Tamid, Middot, 
or Kinnim. As there are 63 treatises in the Mishna (as at 
present divided) that would leave only 59 treatises in the 
Tosefta. But as the Tosefta of Kelim is divided into three 
parts (called Baba Kamma, Baba Mezia and Baba Bathra) 
there are 61 treatises in the Tosefta. In the Erfurt Ms. which 
is the basis of Zuckermandel’s edition the treatise Arlah is 
omitted, and there remain therefore in that edition but 60 
treatises. 


The nucleus of the Tosefta as now extant, is probably that of 
R. Hiyya. But the redactor has made use of several other 
sources. It is clear that very often the order of the laws in 
the Tosefta presupposes an earlier arrangement of the Mishna, 
than that found in our texts of that work. A complete discus- 
sion of the various theories advanced as to the nature of the 
Tosefta, is given by Malter, JQR 11, 75. (F.) 

The various theories bearing on the origin and composition of 
the Tosephta and its relation to the Mishna are well summa- 
rized by Strack. See his Einl. p. 75 ff., and bibliography given 
there. 


In the Tosephta, as we have it, are to be found side by side 
statements and supplements to the Mishna which cannot be 
understood without the latter and enlarged Mishnas including 
both the text of our Mishna and additions to it. The Tosephta 
frequently follows the arrangements of an earlier form of the 
Mishna, perhaps that of R. Meir. (See Briill, Central Anzeiger, 
DewiowcCt. Marx..JQR N.S. Vol. 13, . 354.)) The Amoraim 


.made frequent use of the Tosephta texts in statements which, 


later, were quoted in their own names by their pupils. See 
Horowitz, Magazin, 1891, pp. 145-154. (B.) 


Section 8. 

The Tannaitic Midrashim are the various works consisting 
mainly of the explanations given by the Tannaim on the Pen- 
tateuch. These works were developed primarily in the second 
century, when the Rabbinic world was divided in two great 
schools, the School of Ishmael, and the School of R. Akiba. 
There were therefore two groups of such midrashim or com- 
mentaries. Each group consisted originally of four books, 
commentaries on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuter- 
onomy. There was no such commentary on Genesis because the 
main legal portions of the Pentateuch begin with Exodus XII, 
and it was in the legal portions of the Scriptures that these 
Sages were primarily interested. 

It so happens that of the eight works that were extant only 


four have survived in a complete form. Two of these are from 
the School of R. Ishmael and two from that of R. Akiba. In 


284 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


PAGE 


modern times, however, scholars have succeeded in reconstruct- 
ing partially on the basis of quotations in early books and 
manuscripts recovered from the Genizah, a large part of the 
lost books. We therefore now have the following books: 


On the From the school From the school 
book of of R. Ishmael of R. Akiba 
xXOdUS 1s, Mechilta of R. Ishmael Mechilta of R. Simeon 
b. Johai. 
Leviticus...)... Sifre Sifra 
Numbers..... Sifre Zuta 


Deuteronomy. . Mechilta on Deuteronomy Sifre 

The works marked in italics have only partially been recov- 
ered in modern times. It is somewhat confusing to the student 
that the two parts of the Sifre (that on Numbers and that on 
Deuteronomy) should be from two different schools. It is 
especially confusing since they are usually printed together. 
But it is only within the last generation that the true facts 
about these Midrashim have been discovered, mainly through 
the efforts and wide learning of the late Professor David 
Hoffmann. 

The Mechilta of R. Ishmael is sufficiently described in the text. 
The Mechilta of R. Simeon b. Johai, has been published by 
Dr. D. Hoffmann, Frankfurt-a-M., 1905. It is ascribed to 
R. Simeon b. Johai, the disciple of R. Akiba, but has been 
revised at a later time, by Hezekiah, the son of the R. Hiyya 
who is mentioned in connection with the Tosefta. The meth- 
ods of study in the two schools were quite different and this is 
reflected in a difference in the methods of interpreting the 
Biblical verses. In general it may be said that the school of 
R. Ishmael adhered to the thirteen hermeneutic rules laid down 
by their founder, while the school of R. Akiba, besides using 
some additional rules of interpretation laid special emphasis 
on the redundancy of words and letters. Naturally each school 
had its technical terms by means of which it is easy to dis- 
tinguish the works of the one from those of the other. 

For further studies on the Mechilta of R. Simeon b. Johai, see 
D. Hoffmann, Einleitung in d. Hal. Midrashim, 45-51; J. Lewy, 
Ein Wort u. d. Mechilta d. R. Simon, Breslau, 1889, and Ginz- 
berg, in Lewy Festschrift, p. 403-436. 

Mechilta or Mechilta de R. Ishmael are designations for the 
Halachic or Tannaitic Midrash on Exodus. According to 
Lauterbach (JQR n.s. Vol. II., 1920-21, pp. 169 ff.) Mechilta 
is a later name for the older, original name Sifre, which in- 
cluded the Midrash on Exodus. He also finds no proof from. 
Talmudic and post-Talmudic literature in support of the inter- 
pretation of the term Mechilta to mean a Midrashic collection. 
Hence he assumes that Mechilta, originally meant, like Me- 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 285 


PAGE 


20. 


sichta, Tractates, and its correct pronunciation is Mechilata in 
the plural, since the Midrash so named is composed of many 
(9) tractates. The original arrangement according to trac- 
tates has been slightly changed later on and adopted to an- 
other. arrangement according to Sidras. See J. Z. Lauterbach, 
The Arrangement of the Mekilta in Hebrew Union College An- 
nual, Vol. 1, 1924, p. 427. The views as to the meaning of the 
name Mechilta expressed by J..Z. Lauterbach in JE 8, 444 f.,, 
are abandoned by him in the above mentioned article. (B.) 
Of the Sifra, it must merely be added, that while it originates 
in its present form mainly from the school of R. Akiba, it con- 
tains large parts of the lost commentary of the school of R. 
Ishmael on Leviticus. The name Sifra d’be Rab may mean 
merely that these were school text books rather than they were 
primarily redacted in the academy of Rab. (F.) 


Of the Sifre it must be remarked that since that on Numbers 
comes from the school of R. Ishmael while that on Deuter- 
onomy comes primarily from the School of R. Akiba, they must 
be discussed separately. The Sifre on Numbers is more Hala- 
kic in character than the Mechilta of R. Ishmael, as has been 
pointed out by the author, but otherwise its earmarks are 
those of the works of that school. The authorities mentioned 
are those of that group, the technical terms are the same, and 
the methods of interpretation are the same. The latest edition 
of this work is that of Horovitz, Leipzig, 1917. At the end of 
that book is also published what remains of the Sifre Zuta, the 
commentary to Numbers from the school of R. Akiba. 

The Sifre on Deuteronomy is the work to which the Talmud 
refers when it says that the Sifre is mainly the work of R. 
Simeon b. Johai. That is evident from the fact that a number 
of statements that occur anonymously in this book are else- 
where quoted as those of R. Simeon. But as the names of 
later authorities occur in it, it must have been redacted at a 
later time. According to Hoffmann (Einleitung z. d. Hal. 
Midraschim) its final redactor was R. Johanan. 

As was the case with other books, there existed also a Midrash 
on Deuteronomy from the school of R. Ishmael. Fragments of 
this work have been found in the Genizah and were published 
by Dr. S. Schechter in the Jewish Quarterly Review. These 
fragments together with extracts from the Midrash Ha-Gadol, 
in which the Sifre and this work were found side by side, have 
been published by Dr. D. Hoffmann as the Midrash Tannaim 
to Deuteronomy (1908). (F.) 

Baraita. 

The Baraitot were traditions which were not included in the 
standard collections of Tannaitic statements studied in the 
academies. When the Mishna of R. Judah Ha-Nasi was ac- 


286 


ADDITIONAL NoTEs, CorRRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


24. 


25. 


cepted by all groups as the authoritative basis for academic 
study, other traditions which had not been included, were 
studied “without” the academy. Some of these have bcen 
shown by Professor Ginzberg to have been of high antiquity. 
See his article Baraita in Jewish Encyclopedia, II., 513b. 
Baraita is generally understood to be the technical term where- 
by Tannaitic traditions not found in the Mishna are designated. 
Such traditions are scattered in the Talmuds and Midrashim 
such as Sifra, Sifre, Mekilta, Tosefta, etc. In post-Talmudic 
times it became the general designation of those works which 
either originated or were claimed to have originated in the 
time of the Tannaim. See Ginzberg, JE 2, 514-516; Zunz, 
Gottesd. Vortr. 2nd ed., p. 52; Strack, Einl., p. 2. (B.) 


- On the Zugoth, see Frankel, Monatschrift, 1852, pp. 405- 


421. (M.) 
The literature dealing with the important teachers of the 
Mishna and Gemara is surveyed by Strack, Einl., p. 116 f. (B.) 


The differences between the School of Shamai and that of 
Hillel have been discussed by several scholars, e. g., Ad. 
Schwarz, Die Controversen der Schammaiten u. Hilleliten, Wien, 
1893. Cf. D. Feuchtwang, MGWJ 39 (1895), 370-379; S. Men- 
delsohn, JE 8, 115 f.; Rosenthal, Entst. 2, 16-48; Strack, 
Einl., pp. 119-120. . (B.) 

Akabia b. Mahalalel was the subject of a study by J. Kaempf, 
MGWJ 5 (1856), pp. 146-158. See also S. Mendelsohn REJ 41 
(1900), 31-44; JE 1, 302; Strack, Einl., p. 120. 

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (Spoken of as the teacher of the 
Apostle Paul. See Acts of the Apostles, 22, 8 and cf. 5, 34 ff.; 
see also Weiss Dor. II., 6) was the son of Hillel. The assump- 
tion that he was Hillel’s grandson rests on a single prayer 
in the Talmud which states that Simon, the son of Hillel, must 
have been Gamaliel’s father (Sab. 15a). See S. J. Kaempf, 
MGWJ 3 (1854), 39 ff., 98 ff.; Zipser in Ben Chananja, 1886, 
supplement 4; JE 5, 528-550; Strack, Einl., p. 120. As to his 
ordinances, cf. Hollander, Die Institutionen des Rabban Gama- 
liel, Halberstadt, 1869. (B.) 

Paragraph 5. 

The story that R. Simeon b. Gamaliel was executed by the 
Romans is found only in very late sources, such as Masseket 
Semahot, chapter 8. There is no historical corroboration of 
the legend and it is extremely doubtful. (F.) 

R. Jochanan b. Zaccai. See Rosenthal Entst. 2, §25-30; A. 
Schlatter, Jochanan b. Zakkai, der Zeitgenosse der Apostel, 
Guetersloh, 1899. Cf. L. Blau, MGWJ 43 (1899), 548-561. (B.) 
Rabban Gamaliel IT. Cf. Landau, MGWJ 1 (1851-52), pp. 2838- 
295, 322-335; A. Scheinin, Die Hochschule zu Jamnia u. ihre 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 287 


PAGE 


26. 


7k 


28. 


29. 


bedeutendsten Lehrer mit besonderer Ruecksicht auf Rabbi 
Gamaliel II., Halle, 1878; H. Reich, Zur Genesis des Talmud, 
Wien, 1892; JE 5, 560-562; A. Sulzbach, Gamaliel u. Josua, in 
Jeschurun 4 (1917), pp. 75-90. (B.) 


R. Eliezer 6b. Hyrkanos. Cf. REJ 60, pp. 107 £; Ch. Oppen- 
heim, Beth Talmud 4 (Wien, 1885), 311 ff., 332 ff., 359 ff.; 
Zarkes in Suwalski’s Keneseth Hagedolah 4 (1891), pp. 65-71; 
Wassertrilling, Die halachische Lehrweise des Eliezer b. Hyr- 
kanos in JLB, 1877, No. 22, f. 26; Halevy, Dorot le, 293-296; 
S. Mendelsohn, JE 5, 1138-115; J. Bassfreund, MGWJ 42, 
(1898), pp. 49-57. The view of C. A. R. Totterman (R. Eliezer 
ben Hyrkanos, Leipzig, 1877) that R. Eliezer leaned towards 
Christianity is without foundation or proof. 

R. Joshua 6b. Chanania. Cf. Graetz, Geschichte, 4th ed. 4, 
47-50, and Note 6; Halevy, Doroth le, 317-318, 386-392. See 
also L. J. Mandelstamm, Horae Talmudicae I., Berlin, 1860; 
Br. Meissner, ZDMG 1894, 194 f.; M. Guedemann, Religions- 
geschichtliche Studien, Leipzig, 1876, pp. 131-144; Brill, Jhb 
apeakelthe MU sea) 


R. Elazar b. Azaria. See J. Derenbourg in MGWJ 37 (1893), 
895-398; JH 5, 97 £.; Halevy, Dorot le, 362-368. (B.) 


R. Tarphon is said to have witnessed, while a youth, the tem- 
ple and was strongly opposed to the Judeo-Christian worship 
(Sab. 11la). His permanent home was Lydda where an acad- 
emy existed already three decades prior to the destruction of 
the Temple. See S. Klein, Die Beschluesse zu Lod, in Jeschu- 
run, 5 (1918), 522-535 and JH 12, 56 f. As to the mention of 
Tarphon in early church literature cf. Freimann, MGWJ 55 
(1911), 565 ff.; and S. Krauss, JQR 5 (1892-93), 123-134. (B.) 
R. Ishmael (b. Elisha) and his academy are frequently men- 
tioned in Midrashic literature such as the Mechilta, Siphra and 
Siphre. See Hoffmann, Einleitung in d. hal. Midr., p. 87 f.; 
M. Petuchowski, Der Tanna Rabbi Ismael, Frankfurt, 1894; 
JE 6, 648-650. (B.) 


R. Akiba. As to fuller characteristics of this teacher, see L. 
Ginzberg’s article, Akiba ben Joseph, in JE 1, pp. 304-310, and 
ef. Landau, MGWJ 3 (1854), 45-51, 81-93, 180-148; Is. Gast- 
freund, Toldoth R. Akiba, Lemberg, 1871; Halevi, Dorot le. 
455-467, 620-629, 659-664; S. Funk, Ein palaestinenischer 
Gelehrter aus dem zweiten nachchristl. Jahrhundert, Jena, 
1896; J .Hirsch, Religionsgeschichtl. Bedeutung R. Akibas, 
Prag, 1912; L. Stein, R. Akiba u. seine Zeit, Berlin, 1913; P. 
Billerbeck, R. Akiba, Leben u. Wirken eines Meisters in Israel. 
in Strack’s “Nathanael,” 1916-1918; G. J. Horowitz, Menorah 
Journal 1 (1915), pp. 227-236; Witkind, Chut Hameshulash, 


288 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


30. 


31. 


32. 


33. 


34. 


35. 


Vilna, 1877, pp.-9-60. (B.) 
R. Jochanan b. Nuri. See JE 7, 213. (B.) 


R. Jose the Galilean. See JH 7, 240 f. Cf. Ch. Oppenheim, 
Beth Talmud 5, 138-145, 172-176. (B.) 

R. Jochanan b. Broka was the pupil of R. Joshua b. Chanania. 
See Frankel, Darke, p. 131; Brill, Mebo, 1387 f; JE 7, 210. (B.) 
Ben Zoma who belonged to the second generation of Tannaim 
was a famous Darshan (expounder) who became absorbed in 
theosophic and mystic speculations and as a result, he is said 
to have become demented.  (B.) 


R. Meir. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 4 (1855), 88 ff., 125 ff.; Isaac 
Broyde, JE 8, 432-435. (B.) 

Of R. Meir’s origin little is known. It is by no means certain 
that he was not a native Palestinian. As to the story of his 
dying in Asia Minor, that forms the subject of a controversy 
between Weiss and Graetz on the one hand, and Halevy on the 
other. See Halevy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, Ie, p. 790-6, and 
Weiss II., p. 182 and note. (F.) 

Ben Azai really belonged to the second generation of Tannaim 
and flourished in the second century C.E. His untimely death 
is ascribed to the fact that he, too, was absorbed in the theo- 
sophic speculations of his time. (B.) 


Rk. Jehuda b. Ilat. See M. Joel, MGWJ 6 (1857), 125-134; 
Lauterbach, JH 7, 343 f. As to his controversies with R. Nehe- 
miah (see p. 35) and anonymous scholars, see Bacher, Rab- 
banan, Budapest, 1914, pp. 23-30. (B.) 


k. Jose b. Chalafta. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 6 (1857), 83-91; 
M. Seligsohn, JE 7, 341 f.; Halevi, Dorot le, 781-788. (B.) 

R. Simon b. Jochai. Cf. M. Joel, MGWJ 5 (1856), 365 ff., 
401 ff.; M. Seligsohn, JH 11, 359-363; L. Lewin, R. Simon ben 
Jochai, Frankfurt, 1893. (B.) 


R. Elazar b. Shamua was born in Alexandria and was a loyal 
disciple of R. Akiba whom he visited even while in prison in 
order to receive instruction. See JE 5, 94 f. Halevi, Dorot le, 
806-809. (B.) 

R. Jochanan the Sandelar. Cf. JE 7, 213 f. (B.) 


k. Elazar b. Jacob. S. Horovitz (Siphre, p. xviiif.) is in- 
clined to attribute to this school the authorship of Siphre 
AuttaweGlsJ/ 17 2b 111 GameCba) 

R. Joshua b. Korcha. Cf. JE 7, 298. (B.) 

Rk. Simon b. Gamaliel. Cf. Ph. Bloch, MGWJ 13 (1864), 81 
ff., 121 ff.; Lauterbach, JH 11, 347 f.; Ad. Biichler, La con- 
spiration de R. Nathan et R. Meir contre le Patriarche Simon 


_ ben Gamaliel, REJ 28, 60-74. (B.) 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 289 
PAGE 
36. R. Nathan usually called the Babylonian, because he had emi- 
grated from Babylon to Palestine. JE 9,176 f.; Halevi, Dorot 
le, 819-830; Bacher, Tannaiten 2, 437-453. (B.) 


37. R. Jehuda Hanasi, also spoken of as Rabbenu (Yeb. 45a) or 

Rabbenu Hakadosh (Pes. 37a, Sab. 156a) because of his strict 
ethical conduct, was born in 185 C.E. Scholars differ as to the 
date. See Abr. Krochmal, Hechaluz, 2 (1853), 63-93; 3 (1854), 
118-146; A. Bodek, Mare Aurel. Antoninus als Zeitgenosse 
und Freund des Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi, Leipzig, 1868; H. W. 
Schneeberger, The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehuda ha-Nasi, 
Berlin, 1870; S. Gelbhaus, Rabbi Jehuda Hanassi u. die Re- 
daktion der Mischna, Wien, 1876; A. Biichler, Der Patriarch 
R. Jehuda u. die griechisch-roemischen Staedte Palaestinas; 
JQR 13 (1901), 683-740; Die Maultiere u. die Wagen des 
Patriarchen Jehuda I., MGWJ 48 (1904), 193-208; JE 7, 333- 
337; J. Furst, Antoninus u. Rabbi, in Mag. 1889, 41-45; R. 
Leszynsky, Die Loesung d. Ant. Ratsels, Berlin, 1910; S. 
Krauss, Ant. u. Rabbi, Wien, 1910; La lagende de la naissance 
de Rabbi, REF 58 (1909), 65-74; Zifronowitz in Hashiloah 23 
(1910), pp. 246-255; Strack, Hinl., 1338. (B.) 
The most important of the teachers of R. Judah Ha-Nasi seems 
to have been R. Jacob b. Korshai (Jer. Sabbath 12.5, 10c). (F’.) 
Bar Kappara was actually named R. Elazar b. Elazar Hakap- 
par and was the teacher of Hoshaya and of R. Joshua b. Levy. 
His academy was located in Ceasarea. See Halevi, Dorot 2, 
114 ff., 123-126; Bacher, Tann. 2, 503-520; L. Ginzberg, JE 2, 
503-505. (B.) 


38. R. Jose b. Juda (b. Ilai) I. See Rosenthal, Entst. 3, §64; 
Dacner mLannerd 41 1-42 bee Mery, 24304 (BY) 
Rk. Elazar b. Simon. See JE 5, 104 f.; S. Krauss, R. Elazar 
ben Simon als roemischer Befehlshaber, MGWJ 38 (1894), 


Lol-lo6, 3 (B;) 
R. Simon b. Elazar is often mentioned in Tosephta. See JH 
Tiss 4928 (Be) 


39. R. Hlazar b. Jose (b. Chalafia). JH 5, 99 f.: (B.) 

Rk. Chiya was also one of the editors of the Siphra. See 
Bacher, Tann. 2, 520-530; Baer, Mag. 1890, 28-49, 119-135; 
Is. Broyde, JH 6,480 f. (B.) 

R. Oshaya was also.a disciple of Bar Kappara. He collected 
Mishnayoth. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 89-108; Halevi, Dorot 2, 
2538-258; JH 6, 475 f. Cf. Bacher, The Church Father Origen 
and Hoshaya, JQR 3 (1890-91), 357-360. (B.) 


40. Expounders of the Mishna. See the article Amora in Jewish 
Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 


41. The question as to whether the Babylonian Amoraim knew the 


290 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


PAGE 


42. 


Palestinian Talmud is still unsettled. Rabbi H. Hirschenson 
in Hamisderona II. (1888), pp. 97-120, is against such an as- 
sumption while Jerushalimski in Hakerem (1887), pp. 144-154, 
and Halevi, Dorot, Vol. 3, pp. 111-113, favor such a view. (B.) 
Rk. Chanina b. Chama, succeeded R. Ephes in Sephoris. See 
Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 1-34; Halevi, Dorot 2, 258 ff.; JE 6, 
DIG Tins.) 

R. Hanina b. Hama was a man of considerable importance even 
during the life of R. Judah Ha-Nasi. That scholar on his 
death-bed commanded that R. Hanina should succeed him as 
chief lecturer at the academy, while his son, Gamaliel, was to 
succeed to the Patriarchate. Thus for the first time since the 
days of Hillel was the office of the head lecturer separated from 
the Patriarchate. R. Hanina refused to accept the office, with- 
drawing in favor of the older R. Efes. (F.) 

Rk. Gamaliel III. See Weiss, Dor. 3, 42-44; Bacher, Tann. 2, 
554; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 19-28; JH 5, 562. (B.) 

Rk. Judah II. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 8, 581; JE 7, 337 f; Halevi, 
Dorot, 2, 23-52. Cf. A. Marmorstein, L’opposition contre le 
patriarche R. Juda II., REJ 64, 59-66. (B.) 

R. Judah Ill, the Patriarch, was likewise an Amorah but of a 
later date. It was he who commissioned R. Ame and R. Ashi 
to establish schools for children. See Graetz, Gesch, 4 ed., 4, 
276 f£.; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 338 ff.; Bacher, JE 7, 338 f. (B.) 

R. Ephes was also Rabbi’s successor as head of the Academy 
in Sephoris. See JE 5,50 f. (B.) 

Levi b. Sissi generally quoted as R. Levi. He should not be 
confused with another Amora bearing the same name who was 
a disciple of R. Johanan and a friend of R. Abba b. Kahana. 
See Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 296-486; Tann. 2, 5386-539; JE 8, 21; 
Halevy, Dorot, 2, 119-121; B. Ratner, Die Mishna des Levi b. 
Sissi, in Harkavy Festschrift, 117-122; A. M. Padua, Chut 
Hameshulash, Vilna, 1877, pp. 61-104. (B.) 

k. Jochanan b. Napacha is said, by Sherira Gaon, to have been 
the head of the Academy for about eighty years. Halevi, Dorot, 
2, 298-332, endeavored to prove that he was born in 175-180 C.E., 
and died in 290. See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 205-339; Graetz, 
Gesch. 4th ed., 4, 234-238, and Note 26; J. Bondi, JLG 1, 233- 
268; S. Mendelsohn, JE 7, 211-213; Loewenmayer, MGWJ 4 
(1855), 285-294; 321-328; Horowitz, Literaturblatt d. jud. 
Presse, Berlin, 1871-1873; S. A. Jordan, Rabbi Jochanan bar 
Nappacha, Budapest, 1895; S. J. Zuri, R. Jochanan, Berlin, 
1918; Witkind, Chut Hameshulash, Vilna, 1877, pp. 105- 
142-2552) 

Rk. Simon b. Lakish. See Bacher, Pal. Am. I, 340-418; Graetz, 
Gesch. 4 ed., 238-240; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 317-327; JE 11, 354 f. 
(B.) 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. pagal 


PAGE 


43. 


44, 


45. 


Note 1. To the list of books mentioned must be added now 
Halevi, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, the Jewish Encyclopedia, Hy- 
man’s Toledot Tannaim v’Amoraim, Bacher’s Agada der Pal. 
Amoraer. (F.) 


R. Joshua b. Levi. I. H. Weiss, in his Dor Dor III., p. 60, 
proves that Levi, the father of this Amora, was not the cele- 
brated Levi bar Sissi, and that there were two teachers by the 
name of Joshua b. Levi. 

R. Joshua 6b. Levi, one of the most prominent Palestinian 
Amoraim. A pupil of Bar Kappara, Judah b. Pedaya and R. 
Phineas b. Jair, he flourished during the first half of the third 
century C.E. He organized the communities in Southern Judea 
and visited Rome as collector of revenues for the patriarch. 
See Bacher, Pal. Am. 1, 124-194; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 293-296; 
JH %, 298 f.; J. Rachlin, Toldoth R. Joshua b. Levy, N. Y., 
1906. 

R. Simlai b. Abba had frequent controversies with Christian 
dogmatists. Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 552-566; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 
4, 241-246. (B.) 

Abba Areca was called Areca because of his bodily form. See 
JE 1, 29 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 256-261; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
210-223, 400-410; Funk, Jud. in Bab. I., 42-56; Umanski, in 
Graeber’s Ozar Hasifruth (Krakau 1896), 159-212; J. S. Zuri 
(Schesak), Rab, sein Leben u. seine Anschauungen, Ziirich, 
1918; J. E. Melamed, Raban shel kol bene hagolah, Wilna, 
Lotte Db.) 


Mar Ukba I, was Exilarch 210-240 C.E. See Hoffmann, Mar 
Samuel 74 ff.; Felix Lazarus in Briill’s Jhb., 10, 74-84; S. 
Funk, Jud. in Bab. I. 44, 68, and Note 4; JH 5, 589. Cf. 
Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, Note 27; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 246-252. (B.) 
Mar Ukba II. was, like his grandfather, also Exilarch. See 
Funk, Ib. 107-109, and Note 4; JH 5, 289. (B.) 


R. Abbahu. See S. Perlitz? monograph on Rabbi Abahu in 
Monatschrift XXXVI (1887); also article Abbahu in Jewish 
Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 

R. Elazar b. Pedath. Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 1-87; Halevi, Dorot, 
2, 327-332; Bondi, JLG 1, 258-256; JH 5,95 f. (B.) 

R. Ame. See JE 1, 522 f.; Bacher, Pal. Am. 2, 143-178. (B.) 
R. Assi. See Halevi, Dorot, 2, 232; JE 2, 231. . (B.) 

The R. Assi who lived his whole life in Babylon is said to have 
been inferior to Rab in knowledge of traditional teachings, but 
his equal in dialectic ability (Sanhedrin 36b). It can hardly 
be maintained therefore that he was in any real sense a disciple 
of Rab’s. When Rab came to Babylonia he found this Rab 
Assi and Rab Kahana in Nahardea. Rab treated him with 
respect as an equal (Baba Kamma 80b, Kiddushin 44b). (F.) 


292 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


46. 


46. 


47. 


R. Chiya bar Abba and Simon bar Abba. See Graetz, Gesch. 
4 ed., 4, 280 f.; Bacher, Bab. Am. 86 f.; Pal. Am., 2, 174-204; 
JH 11, 348. ( B.) 

Rk. Abbahu. See Perlitz, MGWJ 36 (1887), 60-88, 119-126, 
177-183, 269-274, 310-320; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 282-287; 
Bacher, Pal. Am., 2, 88-142; K. Kohler, JE 1, 36 f. (B.) 


There is no evidence to point to the election of R. Judah to 
the presidency of the Sura academy after the death of R. 
Huna. It is known, however, that while R. Hisda, who occu- 
pied toward R. Huna the relation of Talmid-Haber, i. e. a pupil 
who afterward had developed into a colleague, remained at 
Sura, most of R. Huna’s other pupils left that city to continue 
their studies under R. Judah b. Ezekiel after the death of their 
master, R. Huna. When R. Judah died two years later, a 
number of the students of Sura returned and re-organized 
the academy under the presidency of R. Hisda. (F.) 

R. Zeira I. (Must not be confused with a later Palestinian 
Amora who bore the same name and who was a pupil of R. 
Jeremiah.) L. Bank, RE J 38, 47-63, points out that there were 
three Amoraim bearing this name, two of whom were Baby- 
lonians. Cf. Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 300-302; Bacher, Pal. 
Am.)3,/1-384; Halevi, Dorot.2,1242 fie. 12565 inten) 

R. Zeira. See JE 12, 652b; S. Berman in Luach Erez Yisrael 
X, 145-154.) 

R. Huna. See Bacher, Babl. Am., 52-60; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 
4, 289-292; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 411 ff., 417 ff.; JE 6, 492 f. S: 
Funk, Jud. in Bab. 1, 111-116; A. Lapiduth in Rabinowitz’s 
Keneseth Yisrael III., 297-308. Another R. Huna, son of R. 
Joshua was, like his contemporary, R. Papa (see above p. 51), 
a disciple of Raba and was rather rich as well as scholarly. 
See Bacher, Babl. Am., 141; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 505 ff.; JH 6, 
493. 


k. Chisda. A distinguished Casuist (Er. 67a); Bacher, Babl. 
Am., 61-71; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 297; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
421 1:;' JE 6, 422 f3; Funk,, dudsin Babs 11162123eeecne 

Rk. Shesheth. Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 289; JH 11, 285 f.; 
Bacher, Bab. Am. 76-79. (B.) 


Rab Nachman b. Jacob.. I. H. Weiss, in his Dor Dor, contra- 
dicts the generally accepted statement that Rab Nachman had 
an academy in Shechan-Zib. (M.) 

It is now generally agreed that while R. Abba b. Abuha, the 
father-in-law of R. Nahman, was a member of the family of 
the exilarch, and because of that fact and through his wealth 
very influential, he was not himself the Exilarch. (See Hal- 
evy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim II. 207a.) (F.) 

Rk. Nachman b. Jacob made the Masora a subject of study in 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Eve. 293 


PAGE 


48, 


49. 


50. 


his home. See J. Mann, JQR ns. 8, 352 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 
ed., 4, 298-300; Halevi, Dorot, 2,412" ts; Bacher, Bab. Am. 79- 
83; Funk, supe in Bab. il: 123- 132; JE 9, 143 tes CB.) 

Rabb ers Chana was a nephew of ie Chiya. See Bacher, 
Bab. Am. pp. 87-98; Heilprin, Seder Hadorot Loo Ler te 
Lauterbach, JE 10, 290 fr ath.) 

Ulla. See Bacher, Bab. Am. 93-97; JE 12, 340. (B.) 


Hillel II, Patriarch 330-365 was the son of Patriarch Judah 
III. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 316- 318; JH 6, 400; Bacher, 
Peal ATI cs: 203 f. (Bay 

R. Phorm tte See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 95-106; Halevi, Dorot 
2, 356-366; JE 7, 108 f. (B.) 

R. Jonah yan R. Jose were at 350 C. E. heads of the academy 
in Tiberias. See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 220-237; Halevi, Dorot 
aon IL oad te 1, O0070, .(B.) 


Rabba ae Huna. See Heilprin, Seder Hadorot, pp. 167b, 
168a; Weiss, Dor III, 195; Bacher, Bab. Am., pp. 62-63; J. Z. 
Lauterbach, JE 10, 291, (B.) 

Rabba bar Ria See Heilprin, Seder Hadorot II., 332- 
334; Weiss, Dor III., 190-191; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 320- RDARE: 
Bacher, Bab. Am., 97- LO Halevi, Dero Pek i all Be 220, 435-440; 
Funk, inne in Bee! PVA 33: Lauterbach, JE 10, 292 a (By) 
ie ocean (bar EDIOAG The redaction es the eee on the 
Prophets is attributed to him. Bacher, Bab. Am., 101-107; 
Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 325 f. Halevi, Dorot, 2, 440 .; Funk, 
Jud. in Bab. 2, 25- 34, (B.) 

A baye. There was another Amora by that name who flourished 
in a former generation, and is characterized as Abaye the 
elder; see Jebamoth 24 a. (M.) 

Abaye. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 327-329; Bacher, Bab. 
Se UT ESN OT 8 Die ly PA ee Halevi, Dorot, Pa 473- 480; Funk, 
ie in Bab. 9, 345 40. (B.) 


§5. 

Raba is stated in the Talmud to have been born when R. Judah 
died (Kiddushin 72b). Since we know from the letter of R. 
Sherira Gaon (ed. B. Levin, p. 85) that R. Judah died in the 
year 299, it has been assumed by some that Raba was born in 
that year. But the correct texts of the Talmud read “Raba 
was born before the death of R. Judah,” and that is the sense 
of the passage as it occurs elsewhere. We may therefore as- 
sume that Raba was born before 299. That view is corrob- 
orated by the several instances in the Talmud of discussions 
between naba and R. Huna who died in 297. On the basis 
of these facts and others pointing in the same direction, it is 
now the generally accepted view that Raba was born about 
BOOSH, eve 


294 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


PAGE 


51. 


52. 


53. 


54, 


Raba. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 108 f., 150, and Prodm, 88; 
Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 829-335; J. A. Joffe, Mag., 1885, 217- 
224; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 473-480, 494-496; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab. 
2, 66-77, and in JLG 4, 204-213; JH 10, 288 f.; Antokolski in 
Straschun’s Heasif, I., Sect. 2, 194-201; A. Lapiduth, in Rabino- 
witz’ Keneseth Yisroel III., 333-340. (B.) 

Rab Nachman b. Isaac. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 133-137; Proém, 
88; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab., 2, 86-88; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 499-502; 
Ji 9,5143-4.°(B.) 


Rab Papa. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 141-148; Graetz, Gesch. 
4 ed., 4, 336 f.; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 505-517; JH 9, 510; Piyoska 
in Graeber’s Ozar Hasifruth 5, 213-218; S. Funk, Jud. in 
Bab., 2, 89, 98. His disciple, Huna b. Nathan, who is fre- 
quently mentioned by R. Ashi, was, according to Sherira Gaon, 
Exilarch. See JE 6, 493 f. (B.) 

Rab Ashe (d. 427 C.E.). See Bacher, Bab. Am., 144-147; JE 
2, 187 f.; Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 348-353; Halevi, Dorot, 2, 
536-539; S. Funk, Jud. in Bab. 2, 98-110, 140-148. As to his 
relations to the Exilarch, Huna bar Nathan, see L. Bank, 
REJ 32, 51-55. (B.) 

Rab Ashe. As to fuller characteristics of this distinguished 
Amora, see in Jewish Encyclopedia, article Ashi, Vol. II. (M.) 


Rab Zebid. See JE 12, 645. (B.) 

Rab Dime also called Abudim. See Bacher, Pal. Am., 3, 691- 
693; JH 4, 603 f. Was head of the Academy in Pumbe- 
ditha. (B.) 

Rafram bar Papa was a pupil of R. Chisda (Sab. 82a) in 
whose name he translated various halachik and haggadic say- 
ings. See Weiss, Dor. 3, 207; Halevi, Dorot, 3, 85-89; J. Z. 
Lauterbach in JE 10, 307. (B.) 

Mar Zutro who was on friendly terms with R. Ashe, died in 
417 C.E. See Bacher, Bab. Am. 147. His successor, Rab 
Acha bar Raba, died in 419 C.E. JE 1, 278. (B.) 

Rab Gebiha. See JH 5, 578; Funk, Jud. in Bab., 2,102. (B.) 
Amemar. See Bacher, Bab. Am., 146; JE 1, 490 f; Halevy, 
Dorot,) 2)7b15,03;, 68=/34 CB.) 


Mar bar Rab Ashe. See Graetz, Gesch. 4 ed., 4, 399 f.; Hal- 
evi, Dorot, 3, 93 f.; Bacher, JH 11, 665. (B.) 

Rafram II. was a pupil of R. Ashi to whom he frequently 
addressed questions (Ket. 95b; Git. 42a). See Halevi, Dorot, 
3, 85-89; J. Z. Lauterbach, JE’ 10, 307. (B.) 


Rabina (II.) bar Huna was a nephew of Rabina I. See 
Halevi, Dorot, 3, 5-15, 100-102; J. Z. Lauterbach, JE 10, 
5007 74) 

The period of the Saboraim, which is by most Jewish histo- 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 295 


PAGE 


56. 


rians limited to about sixty years, is one of the activities of 
which we know little, and yet to which we owe very much. 
According to R. Sherira Gaon in his letter (ed. Lewin, p. 
70-1) it is the Saboraim who in many cases fixed the decisions 
of the law which are found in the Talmud, and added ex- 
plantory remarks and editorial signs by means of which the 
study of the Babylonian’ Talmud has been rendered so much 
less difficult than the study of the Talmud of Jerusalem in 
which this editorial work is lacking. We also are told by 
R. Sherira that it was a tradition of the academy that the 
long passage in the beginning of Kiddushin 2a-3b dealing 
with the exact use of the words in that first Mishna and com- 
menting on each of them, is of Saboraic origin. It may per- 
haps be assumed on the basis of this that the several other 
passages in the Talmud of like character are of the same 
origin. Besides those Saboraim mentioned in the text there 
should be named, R. Simuna, who is said by R. Sherira Gaon 
to have been the last of the Saboraim, R. Ahai who is men- 
tioned by name several times in the Talmud and who has by 
some commentators erroneously been identified with the R. 
Ahai of Shabha of the eighth century, who wrote the Sheeltot. 
The period of the Saboraim was one of persecutions, at one 
time the academy at Pumbedita had to be closed because of 
the persecution of the Persian government. A criticism of 
the views of Weiss and Graetz on this period has been at- 
tempted by Halevi in Dorot Ha-Rishonim III., 2a-32a, but 
much of his argument has been refuted by Epstein in the 
Revue d. Etudes Juives, XXXVI., 222-236. See also Bacher 
inex, 610b. (CF) 

Note 2. As to Rabina I., who died at about 420 C.E., see 
Halevi, Dorot, 2, 536-550, 3, 74-85. Cf. JH 10, 300. (B.) 


Agada. The Agada of the Talmud served as a fruitful source 
for many subsequent collections of Jewish legends For a 
list of such works, see Strack, Einl. pp. 172-175. Cf. also Ch. 
11, pp. 95 f., 100 ff.; H. S. Hirschfeld, Die hagadische Exegese, 
Berlin, 1847; J. Ziegler, Die haggad. Exegese und der ein- 
fache Wortsinn, MGWJ 43 (1899), 159-167, 241-250; N. J. 
Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada, Goettingen, 1901. Cf. 
Leop. Cohn, MGWJ 47 (1903), 89-96; Z. Frankel, Geist der 
palaest. u. babylon. Haggada, MGWJ 2 (1853), 388-398, 3 
1854), 149-158, 191-196, 387-392, 453-361; Bacher, Rabbanan, 
Budapest, 1914; Die Prooem., Leipzig, 1918. Cf. V. Apto- 
witzer, MGWJ 60 (1916), 184-188; J. Bergmann, Geschichte 
u. Legende, Schwarz-Festschr., 89-108; H. G. Enelow, The 
Significance of the Agada, Year Book, CCAR 24, pp. 283 ff.; 
Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, 4 vols., Phila., 1909-13; Rapa- 
port, Tales and Maxims of the Talmud, 2 vols., London, 1912; 


296 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 


PAGE 


58. 


59. 


63. 


64. 


65. 


66. 


A. S. Isaacs, Stories from the Rabbis, N. Y., 1911; Berdi- 
zewsky, Der Born Judas, 6 vols. (B.) 


Section 27. 

As the author has shown above, bottom of p. 48, the state- 
ment that the Palestinian Talmud was completed after the 
Babylonian is not to be taken seriously. There can be no 
doubt whatever that the Talmud of Jerusalem was completed 
long before that of Babylonia. (F.) 

The appellation Talmud eretz Yisrael is mentioned already by 
Saadia Gaon, but in later Gaonic literature, the Palestinian 
Talmud is also called Gemara d’eretz Yisrael and Talmud 
d’Maarba as well as other appellations. See Harkawi, Teshu- 
both Hageonim, Berlin, 1885 ff.; Hakedem ll, obs pipes 
LS otto iee) 


The Babylonian Talmud is so called to distinguish it from the 
Palestinian. In Gaonic literature it is frequently referred to 
as Talmud dilan “our Talmud.” (B.) 


Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan. See article under that heading in 
Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. (M.) 


The following are the seven “minor Treatises”: (a) Sefer 
Torah, (b) Mezuzah, (c) Tephillin, (d) Zizith, (e) Abadim, 
(f{) Kuthim, (g) Gerim.. English translations of Kuthim are 
found in Nutt’s Samaritan Targum, p. 68-72, and J. A. Mont- 
gomery’s Samaritans, p. 196-203. (B.) 


For a larger list of commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud, 
see Strack, Hinl., pp. 160-167. (B.) 


Paragraph 8. 

The commentary on the last chapter of Pesahim which is 
ascribed to Rashi, has been shown by Dienemann, Lewy Fest- 
scrift, p. 259, not to have been the work of Rashi—at least 
not in its present form. That the commentary on Nedarim 
ascribed to Rashi is from another hand is well known. The 
commentary ascribed to R. Gershom, which is substituted after 
f. 22b, for that ascribed to Rashi, is by a group of later schol- 
ars at Mayence. For references on both these facts, see 
Freimann in Hoffmann, Festschrift, p. 122, and Epstein in 
Steinschneider, Festschrift, p. 116. (F.) 

Note 4. 

The Tosafot to most of the treatises are those of R. Eliezer 
of Touques. But there are a large number which were writ- 
ten by R. Perez or his pupils. These are the treatises, Bezah, 
Nedarim, Nazir, Sanhedrin, Maccot and Meila. The Tosafot 
on Sabbath, Erubin, Sotah and Menahot, are those of R. Sam- 
son of Sens, while those on Succah are a reworking of his 
Tosafot, in many cases preserving the original readings. The 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 297 


PAGE 


68. 


69. 


Tosafot on Yoma are those of R. Meir of Rothenburg. Be- 
sides these Tosafot which have been printed with the ordi- 
nary Talmud editions, there are a large number that have been 
printed separately, and many that are still in manuscript. (F.) 
The Tosaphoth and their authors are described by M. Selig- 
sohn, JE’ 12, 202-207; P. Buchholz, Die Tosaphisten als Meth- 
odologen, MGWJ 38 (1894), 343-3859, 398-404, 450-462, 549- 
556; Ch. Tschernowitz, Schwarz-Festschrift (Hebrew sec- 
tion), pp. 9-18. (B.) 


For a fuller list of commentaries on the Mishna cf. Strack, 
EKinl., pp. 156-159. 


For other commentaries on the Babyl. Talmud, see Strack, 
Kinl., pp. 161-163, and the literature there referred to. 


Parts of Moses Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna in 
Arabic have been published by Edw. Pococke and J. Dern- 
bourg, and formed the subject for quite a number of Doctor 
dissertations. They have all been listed by Strack in his Einl., 
p. 157 f. Mention should be made of J. Gorfinkle’s Eight 
Chapters of Maimonides on Ethics N. Y., 1912. Cf. A. Cohen, 
POs 40470-479 erlusik, J Qiins. Vol 4) px b0s cf." An 
earlier effort to translate the Eight Chapters was made in 
Raphall’s Hebrew Review, Vols. 1 and 2 (1834-36). Maimon- 
ides’ commentary on Pesachim was edited with a Hebrew 
translation by J. M. Toledano, Safed, 1915, under the title 
Yede Moshe, from a MS. Sassoon which the editor considered 
as an autograph. See Marx, JQR ns. 18, 360. It should be 
mentioned that Maimonides was not the first to write a com- 
mentary on the Mishna. There is extant a Gaonic commentary 
to Sedar Teharoth, the publication of which J. N. Epstein re- 
cently undertook for the Mekize Nirdamim and to which he 
has already published a critical introduction. See Malter, 
JQE ns. Vol. 13, pp. 102-105. (B.) 


Section 2. 

The commentary of R. Meir b. Baruch of Rothenburg on 
Negaim, Ahalot, Parah and Mikvaot, has been printed on the 
margin of the ordinary Talmud editions. Similarly a com- 
mentary ascribed to R. Hai Gaon on the Mishna of the Order 
Taharot has been printed in the late Talmud editions. Both 
R. Abraham b. David (Rabad) and his contemporary R. Zera- 
hiah Ha-Levi (Provence, twelfth century) wrote commenta- 
ries to the treatise Kinnim. On the other hand the commen- 
tary on Eduyot, ascribed to R. Abraham b. David in the Tal- 
mud editions, has been shown not to have been written by him. 
To the list of modern commentaries must be added the Tiph- 
eret Israel, by R. Israel Lifschitz, a popular commentary which 


298 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 

PAGE 
with that of Bertinoro, has been printed in all recent editions 
of the Mishna. (F.) 


69. Of R. Asher b. Yechiel’s commentary on Zeraim and Teharoth, 
the last two chapters of Sotah, Kinnim and Middoth is printed 
besides commentaries on various Talmudic treatises. See A. 
Freimannj#JLG12,\1918.0237231 706 (Bo) 


70. Add to the commentaries on the Palestinian Talmud the fol- 
lowing: Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb, Zeraim, Amsterdam, 1710; 
Baba Kama, Meziah and Bathra, Frankfurt, 1742; N. Tre- 
bitsch, Shelom Yerushalayim on Moed., Wien; Elijah Wilna, 
Hagaoth Yerushalmi, Konigsberg, 1858; A. Krochmal, Yeru- 
shalayim Habnuyah, Lemberg, 1868; D. B. Ashkenazi, Shaare 
Yerushalayim, Warsaw, 1866; Joshua Isaac of Slonim, Noam 
Yerushalayim, 4 vols., Wilna, 1863-1869. (B.) 


71. Lunz has published part of the Talmud of Jerusalem to the 
order, Zeraim, with a commentary. Even more useful to the 
student is the Ahabat Zion v’Yerushalaim, by B. Ratner, con- 
taining numerous references to the early codes, compendia 
and responsa in which the Talmud of Jerusalem is quoted. 
This is of very great aid not merely in establishing the cor- 
rect text, but very often the quotation is accompanied by a 
clarifying sentence of commentary which is very helpful. Un- 
fortunately the author did not live to complete his work. The 
part published practically covers the orders Zeraim and Moed. 
Of great aid in re-establishing the text of the Talmud of 
Jerusalem, has proven the discovery of the Genizah. A large 
number of fragments bearing on the Jerushalmi have been found 
in that treasure. These have been published as Jerushalmi 
Fragments, by Professor L. Ginzberg (New York, 1909). The 
most recent edition of the Jerushalmi, that of Wilna, 1923, 
contains a republication of the commentary of Sirillo on the 
treatise Berakot, and has made use of the Ahabat Zion v’Ye- 
rushalaim of Ratner as well as of the Jerushalmi Fragments 
of Ginzberg. (F.) 


Lehman’s edition of Syrileio’s commentary on P. Berachoth 
was severely criticized by R. Kirchheim in Hamagid, 1875, 
pp. 220 ff. For other commentaries, see Strack, Hinl., p. 
Sb. 7D.) 


73. The code of Mordecai b. Hillel, after its author, the Mordecai, 
has most often been published with Alfasi, but there is at least 
one edition (that of Riva, the text of which differs to some 
extent from that of the ordinary editions) in which the Mor- 
decai is printed separately. It is compendium like that of 
Asheri, but can hardly be described as a commentary on 
Alfasi. (F.) 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 299 


PAGE 


74. 


75. 


fatie 


78. 


Paragraph c. 

R. Meir Ha-Cohen, author of the Hagahot Maimoniot, was, 
like R. Asher b. Jehiel and R. Mordecai b. Hillel, a disciple 
of R. Meir b. Baruk of Rothenburg. (F.) 


Besides the commentary on R. Joseph Caro on the Tur, men- 
tion should be made of that of R. Joel Sirkes (Poland, 1561- 
1640), called Bet Hadash (usually abbreviated BaH. (F.) 


Besides the MSS. mentioned in the text there should be noted 
the MS. of treatises Rosh-Ha-Shanah, Succah and Yoma in the 
Elkan Adler Collection (Cat. Adler 850) and that of Aboda 
Zara in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of 
America. The Munich MS. of the Talmud has been published 
in a photographed edition by Strack, while the Hamburg MS. 
containing the treatises of Baba Kamma, Baba Mezia and 
Baba Bathra has been published in a similar way by Gold- 
schmidt. (F.) 


Where the text of the Mishna published by Lowe differs from 
that of the ordinary editions and of the Talmud copies, it 1s 
very often supported by the reading of the Mishna in. the 
Talmud of Jerusalem. This did-not however justify Lowe in 
calling his text “that on which the Palestinian Talmud rests.” 
So far as is at present known the Mishna as studied in Pal- 
estine and in Babylonia was practically identical. 

Regarding the MSS. of the Jerushalmi, the Leyden MS. is one 
of those that lay at the basis of the first printed edition. Lunz 
found in the library of the Vatican a MS. of a portion of the 
Order Zeraim, which he utilized in his edition. There are 
other fragments in the libraries of Oxford, the British Mu- 
seum and Paris. There is no MS. of the Talmud of Jerus- 
alem known to exist in the Parma library at present. Of the 
Genizah MSS. which were utilized by Professor Ginzberg in his 
Jerushalmi Fragments mention has been made. (F.) 


78 f. For additional interesting bibliographical material on the 


80. 


80. 


various editions of the Babylonian Talmud, see Strack, Finl., 
pp. 85-88. © (B.) 


End of Section 41. See M. Jastrow, The History and the 
Future of the Talmudic text. Philadelphia, 1897. (M.) 


Section ec. 

Since the appearance of the last edition of this book, there 
have been printed two complete editions of the Palestinian 
Talmud. They are: The Pietrokow Edition, with all the 
commentaries that had appeared in the Shitomir edition, and 
also a new commentary by Ridbaz (R. Jacob David of Slutsk). 
(F.) 


300 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


81. 


82. 


To the editions of the Palestinian Talmud listed, the following 


should be added: The Krotoshin edition was reprinted in 
1919 by L. Lamm, Berlin. A new edition of the text with all 
MSS., variants and commentaries was published in Wilna, 1922. 
The Shitomir edition was reprinted in Petrokow, 1900-02. (B.) 


On the Aruch and its author, see Dr. H. G. Enelow’s illu- 
minating article, Nathan ben Jehiel, in JE 9, pp. 180-183. (B.) 


LEXICONS. 


Dr. D. G. H. Dalman, Aramaisch-Neuhebraisches Handwor- 
terbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, Frankfurt, 1922. 
S. J. Fuenn, Ozar Leshon Hamikra Wehamishnah, 4 vols., 
Warsaw, 1912-1913. 

Jul. Fuerst, Glossarium Graeco-Hebraeum oder der griech. 
Woerterschatz der jued. Midrasch werke, Strassburg, 1891. 
Cf. Jos. Cohn, MGWJ 37 (1898), 283-285, 341 f., 429-434, 485- 
488, and J. Furst, Zur Erklaerung grieschischer Lehnworter 
in Talmud u. Midrasch, MGWJ 38 (1894), 305-311, 337-342. 
Samuel Krauss, Griechische und lateinische Lehnwoerter in 
Talmud, Midrasch und Targum, Berlin, 1898. Cf. also his 
Zur griech. u. latein. Lexikographie aus jued. Quellen, in 
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893), 493-548. (B.) 


GRAMMARS. 


Margolis, Max L. A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the 
Babylonian Talmud. Miinchen, 1910. Cf. Bacher in JQR, 
Violins ana lG0eehoe 
Albrecht, K. Neuhebraeische Grammatik auf Grund der 
Mischna. Miinchen, 1913. 
I. H. Weiss, Mishpat Leshon Hamischna. Wien, 1867. 
Abraham Geiger, Lehr-und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischna, 
Breslau, 1845. Cf. Graetz, Der Orient, Literaturblatt, 1844, 
No. 52; 1845, Nos. 1, 2, 4-6, 41, 42, 46, 48-50; J. Levy, Ibid, 
1844, No. 51. 
D. G. H. Dalman, Grammatik des juedisch-palaestinischen 
Aramaeisch nach den Idiomen des pal. Talmud, des Onkelos- 
targum, etc. Second ed., Leipzig, 1905. (B.) 
W. B. Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. 
Oxford, 1924. 

C. Chrestomathies. 


S. A. Wolff, Mishna-Lese oder Talmud Texte religioes-moral- 
ischen Inhalts 2 Parts, Leipzig, 1866. 

O. Lipschuetz, Mishnath Samuel. Lehr und Uebungsbuch fuer 
den ersten Unterricht in der Mischnah, I., Hamburg, 1867. 
IT) +Berlin. 31871; 

Ch. D. Rosenstein, Mishna Berurah, Warsha, 1910. Beth Mid- 
rash, Wilna, 1907. . 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. - 801 


PAGE 


83. 


84. 


84. 


85. 


86. 


Chananiah. E. H. Kohen, Sefer Sofoh Ahath Ragionamento 
sulla linqua del testo misnico. Reggio, 1819-22. 

J. Goldmann, Gemarah lemathhilim, Wilna, 1902. 

N. Lewin, Mebo Hatalmud, 15th edition, Wilna, 1918. 

Ch. Tschernowitz, Kizzur Hatalmud I., Lausanne, 1919. II, 
Berlin,31922. IIT. Leipzig,- 1923... (B.) 

The Kelale Ha-Talmud, by R. Bezalel Ashkenazi (Egypt, 17th 
century), has recently been published by Professor A. Marx 
(Hoffmann Festschrift, pp. 179-217). (F.) 

I. H. Weiss in Beth Talmud, Vol. I. (1881), pp. 26-31, 53-60, 
85-89, 115-122, 153-159, 181-184, and Vol. II. (1882), pp. 1-8, 
gives a fine bibliographical survey of the various introduc- 
tory works to the Talmud. See also Strack, Einl., pp. 150- 
1547s CBs) 

The latest work on the history of Talmudic times in Hebrew, 
is Halevy, Dorot Ha-Rishonim, Berlin, 1901. 4 vols. 

Of articles on the Talmud in modern languages, the most im- 
portant are that by Schechter in Hastings Dictionary of the 
Bible, and that by Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The 
Einleitung in den Thalmud, by Herman L. Strack, which is 
mentioned in previous editions, has now been revised in the 
fifth edition, as Strack’s Einleitung in Talmud u. Midrasch, 
Munich, 1921. 

For an appreciation of that important work and for impor- 
tant additions, see a review of it by Professor A. Marx, JQR 
Near Seon iloae hs) 


WORKS AND ARTICLES IN MopERN LANGUAGES. 


J. Bassfreund, Zur Redaktion der Mischna, MGWJ 51 (1907), 
291-322, 429-444, 590-608, 678-606. 
L. Ginzberg, Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mischna, in Hoff- 
mann, Festschrift, 311-345. 
Z. L. Lauterbach, JE 8, 609-619. 
S. Schechter, Talmud, in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 5 
(1904), pp. 57-66. Reprinted in his Studies in Judaism, Third 
Series, Philadelphia, 1924. 
W. Bacher, JE 12, 1-37. 
M. Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud, N. Y., 1903. 
W. Bacher, Traditionen u. Tradenten, Leipzig, 1914. (B.) 
H. Graetz. An English translation of the whole work of this 
historian has been published by the Jewish Publication So- 
ciety of America. The Talmudical period is treated espe- 
cially in Vol. II. Philadelphia, 1893. (M.) 

EX\NCYCLOPEDICAL WORKS. 
M. Guttmann, Mafteah Hatalmud, Vol. I., Budapest, 1908. 
Vol. Il., Budapest, 1917. An encyclopedical work in Hebrew. 
(B.) 


302 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 


PAGE 


pe Wf 


88. 


88e. 


90. 


Similar to Zionim, but more complete is the book Ozar Le- 
shon Chakamim by Kalman Perla. Warsaw, 1900. (M.) 
Translations of the Talmud. See E. Bischoff Kritische Ge- 
schichte der Talmuduebersetzungen. Frankf. 0. M., 1899. (M.) 
The treatise Abot has been most recently translated into Eng- 
lish by B. Halper, printed together with the Hebrew text and 
a Yiddish translation by Yehoash, New York, 1922. (F.) 
R. T. Herford, Pirke Abot, in Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseude- 
pigrapha, Vol. II., Oxford, 1913, pp. 686-714. 
C. Taylor, The Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, appeared in 
a second edition, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1897. (B.) 
To the list of Mishna translations, the following should be 
added: Mischnajoth Hebr. Text mit Punktation, deutscher 
uebersetz., u. Erklaerung. Berlin-Frankfurt. Seraim von A. 
Sammter, 1887. Moed v. Ed. Baneth, 1920. Naschin v. Petu- 
chowski 189 (incomp.). Nesikin v. D. Hoffmann, 1898. Kado- 
schim, J. Cohen, 189 (incomp.). Die Mischna Text, Ueberset- 
zung u. ausf. Erklaerung, von G. Beer u. O. Holtzmann. Gies- 
sen, 1912 ff. Carelessly done, see Halper, JQR ns. Vol. 5, pp. 
99-108, Vol. 6, 209-215; Vol. 7, pp. 408-414;. Aptowitzer, 
MGWJ 57 (1913), pp. 1-23, 129-152, 272-283; 58 (1914), 386- 
394. 
H. L. Strack, Ausgewaehte Mischna-traktate nach Hand- 
schriften u. alten Drucken. Aboth 4 ed. (1915), Berakoth 
(1915), Joma 3 (1912), Sanhedrin Makkoth (1910), Aboda 
Zara (2nd edition, 1909), Pesahim (1911), Schabbath (1890). 
J. Rosenfeld, Der Mischna-tractat Berachot uebs. u. erlau- 
tert. Pressburg, 1886. 
P. Volz, Das Neujahrfest Jahwes (Laubhiittenfest), Ti- 
bingen, 1912. (B.) 

ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 


H. Danby, Tractate Sanhedrin, Mishna and Tosefta...... 
translated with brief annotations. London, 1919. 

W. A. L. Elmslie, The Mishna on Idolatry. Aboda Zara. Ed- 
ited with translation and notes. Cambridge, 1911. 

Greenup, A. W. The Mishna Tractate Taanith...with brief 
annotations. London, 1918. 

Tractate Sukkah Mishna and Tosephta. London, 1921. 
A. Lukyn Williams, Tractate Berakot, Mishna and Tosefta. 
London, 1922. (B.) 


Latin Translations of single Masechtoth. H. S. Hirchfield 
Tractatus Maccoth cum Scholiis hermeneuticis, ete. Berlin, 
1842. 

German Translations, add: Laz. Goldschmidt. Der Baby]. 
Talmud herausgegeben nach der ersten Zensurfreien Bom- 





ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 303 


PAGE 


bergschen Ausgabe...uebersetzt und mit kurzen Anmerkungen 
verschen. Vols. I.-VIII. Berlin, 1897-1922. 

M. Rawicz. Der Tractat Kethuboth uebersetzt. Frankf. o. 
M., 1898, 1900. (M.) 


GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. 


90b. H. Georg F. Loewe. Der erste Abschnitt des ersten Trak- 


ol 


tats von Babylonischen Talmud betitelt Brachoth....uebers. 
nebst Vorrede u. Einl. Mit drei Anhangen. Hamburg, 1836. 
M. Rawicz, Der talmud. Traktat Chulin....nach der Wiener 
Ausgabe von Jahre 1865 uebertragen und kommentiert. Of- 
fenburg, 1908. ; 

, Der Tractat Kethuboth....uebertragen und kommen- 
tiert. Frankfurt, 1898, 1890. 
W. Rothstein, Der Mischnatractat Megilla....uebersetz.... 
mit Anm. Tuebingen, 1912. 
H. Bahr und L. A. Rosenthal, Der Mischna-tractat Sotah. 
Hinl., Textausgabe und Uebersetz, Berlin, 1916. 
G. Hoelscher, Sanhedrin und Makkot, uebers. und....mit 
Anm., Tuebingen, 1910. 
G. pe Mischnatractat Sabbath uebers. u. mit Anm., etc., Tue- 
bingen, 1908. 
Wiinsche, Bab. Talmud has been completed in four volumes, 
of which Vol. 3 and 4 appeared in 1889. (B.) 


FRENCH TRANSLATIONS. 
L. Chiarini, Le Talmud de Babylone traduit....et complété 


par celui de Jérusalem. 2 vols., Leipzig, 1831. (Only Bera- 
choth.) (B.) 





ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS. 


92d. Michael L. Rodkinson is publishing The Babylonian Talmud, 


92. 


93. 


translated into English (partly abridged), of which the fol- 
lowing volumes appeared: Volumes I. and II., Sabbath; Vol- 
ume III., Erubin; Volume IV., Shekalim and Rosh- Hashana: 
Volume V., Pesachim; Volume VI., Yomah and Hagigah; Vol- 
ume VII., Betzah, Succah and Moed Katon; Volume VIII., 
Megillah ‘and Ebel Rabbathi; Volume IX., Aboth, Aboth de 
Rabbi Nathan and Derech Eretz; vy cime Dh ee Kama; 
Volumes XI. and XII., Baba Metzia; Volumes XII. and XIV., 
Baba Bathra. New York, 1896, 1902. (M.) 

Palestinian Talmud. 

Greenup, A. W. A Translation of the Treatise Taanith from 
the Palestinian Talmud. London, 1918. (B.) 

Agada. Of his “Agada der Palastinischen Amoraer,” W. 
Bacher published 1896, Volume II., Die Schueler Jochanan’s, 
and 1899, Vol. III., Die letzten Amnoraer des heiligen Landes. 


304 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


PAGE 


94, 


95. 


Archaelogical. P. Rieger, Technologie u. Terminologie der 
Handwerke in der Mischnah. Berlin, 1895. 
H. Vogelstein. Die Landwirthschaft in Palestina zur Zeit der 
Mischna. Berlin, 1894. (M.) 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL. 
S. Meyer, Arbeit und Handwerk im Talmud, Berlin, 1878. 
Gust. Loewy, Die Technologie u. Terminologie der Mueller u. 
Baecker in den rabbin. Quellen. Leipzig, 1898. 
J. Krengel, Das Hausgeraet in der Mischnah, Frankfurt, 1899. 
M. Winter, Die Koch-u. Tafelgeraete in Palestina zur Zeit der 
Mischnah, Berlin, 1910. 
A. Sch. Herschberg, Cemer u. Pista zur Zeit der Mischna u. d. 
Talmuds. Hakedem 2 (1908), 57-80; 3 (1912), 7-29. 
A. Rosenzweig, Das Wohnhaus in der Mischnah, Berlin, 1907. 
Siegfr. Schemel, Die Kleidung der Juden im Zeitalter der 
Mischnah, Rostock, 1914. 
S. Krauss, Baden u. Badenwesen im Talmud. Hakedem 1 
(1907), 87-110, 171-194; 2 (1908), 32-50. 
A. Sch. Herschberg, Yofi wehithyafutha shel haishah bizman 
ha-Talmud. Heathid 4 (1912) 1-56; 5 (1913), 102-4. 
S. Krauss, Hakrah Hair we’hakfar batalmud. Heathid, 3 
(1911), 1-50. 
A Sch. Herschberg, Habarsauth bime ha Mishna wehatalmud. 
Hakedem, 3 (1909), 93-106. (B.) 


Biographical. M. D. Hoffmann. Biographie des Elischa ben 
Abuya. Vienna, 1870. 

F. Kanter.. Beitraege zur Kenntniss des Rechtsystems und 
der Ethik Mar Samuels. Bern, 1895. 
A. Kisch. Hillel der Alte, Lebensbild eines jued. Weisen Prag 
1889. 

L. Lewin, R. Simon b. Jochai. Frankf. o. M., 1893.) (v2) 

To biographical literature on Hillel add: 

Alex. Kisch, Hillel der Alte. Lebensbild eines juedischen 
Patriarchen, Prag, 1889. 

G. Goitein, Mag. 1884, 1-16, 49-87. 

Fr. Delitzsch, Jesus und Hillel, 3 Aufl. Erlangen, 1879. (B.) 


Customs. J. M. Cassanowicz. Non-Jewish religious ceremo- 
nies in the Talmud (in proceedings of the American Oriental 
Society). New York, 1894. 

Education. EH. Van Gelden. Die Volkeschule des juedischen 
Alterthums nach Talmudischen Quellen. Berlin, 1872. 

J. Lewit. Darstellung der theoretischen und practischen Paed- 
agogik im juedischen Alterthum. Berlin, 1896. 

Ethics. M. Lazarus. Die Ethik des Judenthums. Franf., o. 
M., 1898. Translated into English (the Ethics of Judaism) 
by Henriette Szold, 2 volumes. Philadelphia, 1900-1901. (M.) 


PAGE lj 


96. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 305 


CUSTOMS. 


W. Bacher, Zur Geschichte der Ordination. MGWJ 38 (1894), 
L22eLot, 
L. Loew, Die Horaa (Schriften 4, 158-166). 
——, Der Titel Rabbi u. Rabban. Ib. 210-216. (B.) 

é EDUCATION. 
Ad. Buechler, Learning and Teaching in the Open Air. JQR 
ns. 4, 485-491. 
N. H. Imber, Education in the Talmud, in Report of the U. S. 
Commissioner of Education for 1894-5, pp. 1795-1820. Wash- 
ington, 1896. 
Sal. Stein, Schulverhaeltnisse, Erziehungslehre und Unter- 
richtsmethoden im Talmud. Berlin, 1901. 
L. Wiesner, Die Jugendlehrer in der talmudischen Zeit. Wien, 
1914. 
B. Strassburger, Geschichte der Erziehung u. der Unterrichts 
bei den Israeliten. Von der vortalm. Zeit bis auf die Gegen- 
wart. Stuttgart, 1885. 
J. Ster, Die talmudische Paedagogik, Breslau, 1915. 
E. van Gelder, Die Volkschule d. jued. Altertums nach tal- 
mud. u. rabb. Quellen. Berlin, 1872. 
Jul. Lewit, Darstellung der theoret: u. prakt. Paedagogik in 
jued. Altertum. Berlin, 1896. 
W. Bacher, Das Pivodisene Schulwesen. Jhrb. JGL 6, 48-81. 
B. Spiers, School System of the Talmud. London, 1898. 
H. Gollancz, Padagogics of the Talmud and that of modern 
times. London, 1924. (B.) 


ETHICS. 


Salo Stein, Materialen zur Ethik des Talmud, Frankfurt, 1894. 
Cf. MGWJ 41 (1897), 289 f. 

Albert Katz, Der Wahre Talmud-jude. Berlin, 1898. 

M. Guedemann, Moralische Rechtseinschraenkung in mo- 
saisch-rabb. Rechtssystem. MGWJ 61 (1918), 422-448. 

J. Giinzig, Pessimistische Gedanken in Talmud u. Midrasch. 
Maybaum-Festsch. 148-156. 

Felix Perles, Zar Wurdigung der Sittenlehre des Talmuds in 
his Jued. Skizzen, pp. 100-110. 

J. Z. Lauterbach, The Ethics of the Halakah in Year Book 
GG ACK LU LS: 

S. Stein, Das Problem d. Notluege im Talmud. JLG 5, 206- 
2248 (Ba) 

Exegesis and Bible Criticism. W. Bacher. Ein Woerterbuch 
der bibelexegetischen Kuntsprache der Tannaiten. Leipzig, 
1899. 

M. Hisenstadt. Ueber Bibelkritik in der talmud. Literatur. 
Berlin, 1894. (M.) 


306 


PAGE 


Die 


98: 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY. 
Is. Levi, Les sources talmudiques de V’histoire juive. REJ 35 
(1897), 2138-228. 
M. Weinberg, Die Organisation der jued. Ortsgemeinden in 
der talmud. Zeit. MGWJ 41 (1897), 588-604, 639-660, 673-691. 
S. Krauss, Die Versammlungstatten der Talmud. Gelehrten. 


Levy-Fest. 17-35. (B.) 

LAW (a) IN GENERAL. 
Ch. Tschernowitz, Zur Erforschung der Geschichte des jued. 
Rechts. Zeitsch f. verg. Rechtswissenschaft 27, 404-424. (B.) 
Law in General. M. Mielziner. Legal Maxims and Funda- 
mental Laws of the Civil and Criminal Code of the Talmud. 
Cincinnati, 1898. 
M. W. Rapaport. Der Talmud und sein Recht (In Zeitschrift 
fuer vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XIV. Band. Stutt- 
gart, 1900. 
Judicial Courts. Adolf Buechler, Das Synhedrion in Jerus- 
alem. Vienna, 1902. 
J. Klein. Das Gesetz ueber das gerichtliche Beweisverfahren 
nach mosaisch talmudischem Rechte. Halle, 1885. (M.) 

(b) JUDICIAL COURTS. 
H. P. Chajes, Les juges juifs en Palestine d l’an 70 a l’an 500. 
REJ 39 (1899), 39-52. 
M. Waxman, Civil and Criminal Procedure of Jewish Courts. 
JTS Students’ Annual I., N. Y., 1914, pp. 259+309. 

(c) EVIDENCE IN LAw. 
Z. Frankel, Die Hidesleistung der Juden, Dresden und Leip- 
zig, 1840. 2nd edition, 1847. (B.) 

CRIMINAL Law. 

J. Wohlgemuth, Das. jued. Strafrecht u. die positive Straf- 
rechtsschule. Berliner-Fest. 364-376. 
Joel Blau, Lex Talionis. Year Book, C.C.A.R., 26, p. 336 ff. 
M. Aron, Histoire de excommunication juive. Nimes, 1882. 
D. W. Amram, Retaliation and Compensation, JQR ns. 2, 
191-211. 
The Summons, a Study in Jewish and Comparative Pro- 
cedure. Reprint from Univ. of Penna. Law Review, 1919. 18 
pp. (B.) 
Civil Law. M. Bloch. Der Vertrag nach mosaisch-talmud. 
Rechte Budapest, 1892. 
Inheritance and Testament. M. Bloch. Das mosaisch-talmud. 
Erbrecht. Budapest, 1890. 
M. Mielziner. The Rabbinical Law of Hereditary Succession. 
Cincinnati, 1900. 
M. W. Rapaport. Grundsaetze des (talmudischen) Intestater- 





ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 307 


PAGE 


ahh 


brechts und Schenkungen (in Zeitschrift fuer vergleichende 
Rechtswissenschaft XIV. Band, pp. 33-148). Stuttgart, 1900. 


LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE, ETc. 


D. W. Amram. The Jewish Law of Divorce. Philadelphia, 
1896. (M.) 

Lewi Freund, Genealogien und Familienreinheit in biblischer 
u. talm. Zeit. Schwarz-Fest., pp. 163-192. 

L. Blau, Die jued. Ehescheidung u. der jued. Scheidebrief, 
Budapest, 1911-12. 

Is. Unna, Die Aguna-Gesetze, Jeschurun 3 (1916), 347-366. 
Jacob Neubauer, Beitraege zur Geschichte des biblisch-tal- 
mudischen Eheschliessungsrechtes. Leipzig, 1920. 

A. Sch. Herschberg, Minhage Haerusin Wehane’suim bizman 
hatalmud in Heathid 5 (1913), pp. 75-102. 

W. Leiter, Die Stellung der Frau im Talmud. Amsterdam, 
1918s0(B.) 


LAWS CONCERNING SLAVES, MINORS AND DEFECTIVES. 


Laws Concerning Slavery. D. Farbstein. Das Recht der 
freien und der unfreien Arbeiter nach Juedish-talmudischem 
Recht. Frankf. o. M., 1896. 
Is. Lebendiger, The Minor in Jewish Law. JQR ns. 6, 459- 
493; 7, 89-111, 145-174. 
M. Bloch, Die Vormundschaft nach mosaisch-talmudischen 
Recht. Budapest, 1904. 
J. Blau, The Defective in Jewish Law and Literature. N. Y., 
1916. 
R. Kirsch, Der Erstgeborene nach mosaisch-talmud. Recht. 
Frankfurt, 1901. 
S. Rubin, Der naseiturus als Rechtsubject im talmud u. ro- 
mischen Rechte. ‘Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtwiss., 20 (1907), 
119-156. (B.) 
R. Grunfeld, Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden nach 
bibl. u. talm. Quellen. 1886. 
M. Olitzski, Der juedische Sklave nach Josephus u. der Hal- 
acha. Mag. 1889, 73-83. 
D. Farbstein, Das Recht der unfreien u. der freien Arbeiter 
nach jued.-talm. Recht, etc. Frankfurt, 1896. 
S. Rubin, Ein Kapitel aus der Sklaverei im Talmud. u. roem. 
Rechte. Schwarz-Fest. 211-229, 572-574. Das Talmudische 
Recht. I. Buch: Die Sklaverei, Wien, 1920. (B.) 

LINGUISTICS. 
S. Mannes, Ueber den Einfluss des Aramaeischen auf den 
Wortschatz der Mishnah. Posen, 1899. 
L. Dukes, Die Sprache der Mischna, lexikographisch u. gram- 
matisch betrachtet. Esslingen, 1846. 


308 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 


PAGE 


100. 


H. Rosenberg, Das Geschlecht der Hauptwoerter in der Misch- 
na. Berlin, 1908. 

Sal. Stein, Das Verbum der Mischnasprache. Berlin, 1888. 

fF’, Hillel, Die Nominalbildungen in der Mischnah. Frankfurt, 
1891. 

H. Sachs, Die Partikeln der Mischna. Berlin, 1897. 

C. Siegfried, Beitraege zur Lehre von dem zusamengesetzten 
Satze im Neuhebraeischen. Kohut Studies, Berlin, 1897, 543- 
556. 

M. H. Segal, Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical 
Hebrew and to Aramaic. JQR 20 (1908), 647-737. 

Felix Perles, Nachlese zum neuhebr. u. aram. Woerterbuch. 
Schwarz-Fest. 293-310. 

J. N. Epstein, Zur Babylonisch-Aramaischen Lexikographie. 
Schwarz-Fest. 317-327. 

Louis Ginzberg, Beitraege zur Lexikographie des Aramaei- 
schen. Schwarz-Fest. 329-360. 

S. uw. M. Bondi, Or Esther oder Beleuchtung der im Talmud 
von Babylon und Jerusalem in d. Targumim u. Midraschim 
vorkomenden fremden bes. lateinischen Woerter. Dessau, 1812. 
M. Schlesinger, Das aramaeische Verbun im Jerusalemischen 
Talmud. Berlin, 1889. 

A. Liebermann, Das Pronomen u. das Adverbium des Babylon- 
isch-talmud. Dialekts. Berlin, 1895. 

I. Rosenberg, Das aramaeische Verbum im Babylonischen Tal- 
mud. Marburg, 1888. 

M. Lewin, Aramaische Sprichwoerteh u. Volksspraeche. Ber- 
lin, 1895. 

Z. Rabbiner, Beitraege zur hebr. Synonymik in Talmud u. 
Midrasch. Berlin, 1899. (B.) 


Proverbs, Maxims. Henry Cohen. Talmudic Sayings. Cin- 
cinnati, 1895. 


G. Taubenhaus. Echoes of Wisdom or Talmudic Sayings. 
Part I. Brooklyn, 1900. (M.) 


MEDICINE, SURGERY, ETc. 


M. Steinschneider, Schriften ueber Medizin in Bibel u. Tal- 
mud, etc. Wiener Klinische Rundschan, 1896, No: 25-2640.07- 
AN Preuss, ZHB 1 (1896) ,.22-28. 
Isr. M. Rabbinowicz, Hinl. in die Gesetzbung u. die Medizin 
des Talmuds. Leipzig, 1883. 
G. Nobel, Zur Geschichte der Zahnheilkunde im Talmud. Leip- 
zig, 1909. 

NATURAL HISTORY AND ScrRN ene) 


Imm. Loew, Die Flora der Juden. Wien, 1924. 
M. Z. Taksin, Yediath Hateba Shebatalmud. Warsaw, 1907. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 309 
PAGE | 
S. Alexander, Beitraege zur Ornithologie Palaestina’s auf 
Grund der alten hebraeischen Quellen. Berlin, 1915. (B.) 


101. Popular Treatises. Arsene Darmstetter. The Talmud (trans- 
lated from the French by Henriette Szold). Philadelphia, 
1897. 

H. Goitein. Anklaeger und Vertheidiger des Talmud. Frankf. 
o. M., 1897. 

J. Eschelbacher. Zwei Reden ueber den Talmud. Frankf. o. 
M., 1897. (M.) 


123. On Halacha l’Moshe Mi-Sinai, see also Schorr in Hechaluz, 
Vol. IV., pp. 28-49. In the Mishna this term occurs only 
three times, namely: Peah, ii, 6; Eduyoth, viii, 7; and Ye- 
dayim, iv, 6. (M.) See also Bacher in Studies in Jewish Lit- 
erature...in honor of K. Kohler, pp. 56-70. (B.) 


128. The earliest commentary on the thirteen rules of R. Ishmael 
of which we know, is that by Saadia Gaon (tenth century). 
It was published by Schechter in Bet Talmud, IV eco and 
in the Oeuvres Completes, IX., 73-83. The most important 
recent work on the subject has been that of A. Schwartz, in 
his books, Die Hermeneutische Analogic, Vienna, 1897, and 
Die Hermeneutische. Syllogismus, ib. 1901. (F.) 


129. Add to Literature on Hermeneutic Rules the following: 
Adolf Schwarz. Die Hermeneutische Analolgie in der Tal- 
mudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1899. Cf. L. Blau, REJ 36, 
150-159. 

Adolf Schwarz. Der Hermeneutische Syllogismus in der Tal- 
mudischen Literatur. Vienna, 1901. Cf. Wachstein, MGWJ 
1902, 538-62. (M.) 


140. Instead of the last eight lines of this and the first three lines 
of page 141, read the following: 
The fallacy of this inference is obvious. It postulates that 
one may enter marriage only with such a woman in whose 
place he can marry her mother, hence when that mother is 
either a widow or a divorced woman. But according to this 
postulate the high priest could not enter marriage at alls 
since he was forbidden to marry either a widow or a divorced 
woman. Rabbi Gamaliel therefore answered the questioner: 
“Go thou and take care of the high priest in regard to whom 
it is written, ‘Only a virgin from among his people he shall 
marry;’ I shall then take care of all Israel.” (M.) 


PAR DLL: 


Po ae hapterc |. 
The best work of reference on the subject of the Terminology 
of the Talmud for the advanced student is Bacher’s “Die 


310 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 


PAGE 


195. 


de 


220. 


Exegetische Terminologie der Judischen Traditions-liter- 
ature ha) 


Section 11. 

In Hoffmann Festschrift (p. 311) Professor Ginzberg has 
pointed out that the words “en ben” which occur as the 
beginning of a number of Mishnayot in Megillah are a trace 
of the time when rules of law were arranged not always in 
accordance with their subject but often in accordance with 
the terms of their formulation . There are a number of other 
such collections still preserved in our Mishna. (F.) 


Section 15. 

The terms lakathillah and b’diabad require somewhat further 
elucidation. They are usually mentioned in connection with 
ritual law. Some of the details of a ceremony are essential 
to its performance, and some ought to be observed but are 
not absolutely essential. For instance, in slaughtering fowl, 
one ought to cut both the esophagus and the trachea; never- 
theless if one has cut either of them, the fowl may be eaten. 
The manner in which the ceremony ought to be performed 
is called lakathillah; those elements of the ceremony with- 


out which it cannot be performed at all are called b’diabad. 
(F.) 


Sections 59, 60 and 61. 

For a further discussion of these terms see Bacher, Exeg. 
Termin., II., 238-240. T’nan is to be translated “We have 
studied.” Tnena is an older form of the same word; Tania 
is a passive participle of the same root, and is to be trans- 
lated “It is studied” or “It is handed down by tradition.” (F.) 
Chapter IX. 

The expression “hewe” has been discussed by Bacher, op. cit, 
Il., 49, and by Ginzberg in Schwarz Festschrift, p. 347. (F.) 


ADDITIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A list of the important commentaries on the Talmud that have 
thus far been printed is given by Freimann, in the Hoffmann Fest- 
schrift, pp. 115 ff. He also gives a list of the MSS. of commen- 
taries to the Talmud and the various libraries in which they are 
to be found. 

English. 


A. Cohen, The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakot, translated 
into English for the first time, with Introduction, Commentary, 
Glossary and Indices, Cambridge, 1921. 


S. Krauss, The Mishnah Treatise Sanhedrin, with Introduction, 
Notes and Glossary, Leyden, 1909. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. oud 
PAGE 
AGADA. 

W. Bacher, Rabbanan. Die Gelehrten der Tradition, Budapest, 
1914. 
ade . Bacher, Die Prodmien der alten jiidischen Homilie, Leipzig. 
In Hebrew (Compendia, Collections, Indices). 

En Jacob, by R. Jacob Ibn Habib, translated in part into English 
by J. Glick, 5 vols., New York, 1918-1922. 

Sefer Ha-Agadah, by J. Ravnitski and Ch. N. Bialik, Vols. I., 
II., IlI., Cracow, 1908-10. 

Ozar Ha-Midraschim, by J. D. Eisenstein, New York, 1915. 

Ozar Kol, by K. W. Perla, Vol. I., Lublin, 1909. 

Ozar Agadot, by G. Muller, Vols. I., II., III., Pressburg, 1877; 
Vol. IV., Paks, 1901. 

Bet Vaad La-Hakamim, by A. Hyman, London, 1902. 

Zikron Torath Mosheh, by Moses Figo, Constantinople, 1552. 

Yefeh Mareh, by S. Jaffe (a collection of the aggadic statements 
of the Palestinian Talmud), Constantinople, 1587, Amsterdam, 
TANG 

Asher Feldman, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis. Cam- 
bridge, 1924. 

M. Gaster, The Exempla of the Rabbis. London-Leipzig, 1924. 

Yalkut Eliezer, by E. Z. Sofer, Pressburg, 1874. 

Mafteah Ha-Aggadot, by Mordecai b. Benjamin, Wilna, 1880. 

Zion Lidaresh, by 8S. P. Frankel, Krotoschin, 1858. 

Rab Pe’alim, by Abraham Wilna, Warsaw, 1894. 

Z. Frédnkel, Geist der palast. u. babyl. Haggada, MGWJ 1853, 
1854. 

M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrage zur semit. Sagenkunde, Leyden, 
1893. 

M. Griinbaum, Aufsatze zur Sprach u. Sagenkunde, Berlin, 1901. 

H. S. Hirschfeld, Die Halachische Exegese, Berlin, 1847. 

S. Hurwitz, Pygmy Legends in Jewish Literature, JQR, NS, VI. 

N. J. Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada, Vol. II., Die Alexan- 
drinische Agada, Gottingen, 1901. 

I. Ziegler, Die K6énigsgleichnisse des Midrasch beleuchtet durch 
die rdmische Kaiserzeit, Breslau, 1903. 
Smaller Collections. 

B. Beer, Leben Abrahams nach Affassung der jiidischen Sage, 
Leipsic, 1859. 

P. Billerbeck, Abrahams Leben u. Bedeutung...nach Auffas- 
sung der alteren Haggada, Strack’s Nathanel, 1899-1900. 

R. Faerber, Konig Salomon in der Tradition, Vienna, 1902. 

R. Fischer, Daniel u. seine Drei Gefahrten in Talmud u. Mid- 
rasch, Frankfort-am-M., 1906. 

J. S. Renzer, Hauptpersonen des Richterbuches in Talmud u. 
Midrasch, Vol. I., Samson, Berlin, 1902. 


312 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
PAGE 

A. Rosner, Davids Leben u, Charakter nach Talmud u. Mid- 
rasch, Oldenberg, 1908. 

G. Salzberger, Die Salomo-Sage in der semit. Literatur, Berlin, 
1907. 

G. Salzberger, Salomos Tempelbau u. Thron in der semit. Sagen 
literatur, Berlin, 1912. 

ARCHAEOLOGY. 

General. 

S. Krauss, Talmudische Archdologie, Vols. I., II., III., Leipzig, 
1910-1912. Hebrew translation, Wien, 1923. 
Particular Phases. 

J. Krengel, Das Hausgerat in der Mishnah, Vol. I., Frankfort- 
am-M., 1899. 

Adolph Rosenzweig, Kleidung u. Schmuck in biblischen u. Tal- 
mudischen Schrifttum, Berlin, 1905. 

Arthur Rosenzweig, Das Wohnhaus in der Mishnah, Berlin, 1907. 

M. Winter, Die Koch- u. Tafelgerate in Paldstina zur Zeit dcr 
Mishna, Berlin, 1911. 


BIOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL. 

Hebrew Works. 

Seder Ha-Dorot, by Jehiel Hailperin, Warsaw, 1882. 

Mebo Ha-Mishna, by J. Brull, Frankfort-am-M., 1876. 

Darke Ha-Mishna, by Z. Frankel, Leipsic, 1859. 

Mebo Ha-Jerushalmi, by Z. Frankel, Breslau, 1870. 

Dor Dor Ve-Dorshav, by I. H. Weiss, Vienna, 1871, and later. 

Dor Jesharim, by J. Lifschitz, Petrokow, 1907. 

Dorot Ha-Rishonim, by I. Halevi, Pressburg, 1896-1918. 

Toledot Israel, by W. Yavitz, Vol. VI., Cracow, 1907; VII. and 
VIII., Berlin, 1909-12; IX., London, 1922. 


IN MODERN LANGUAGES. 

Bacher’s works on the Agada mentioned above. 

M. Braunschweiger, Die Lehrer der Mishnah, Frankfort-am-M., 
1903. 

S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, Berlin, 1902. 

H. Tj. de Graaf, De Joodsche Wetgeleerden in Tiberias van 
70-400 n.c., Groningen, 1902. 

Jewish Encyclopedia, Under the names of the individual scholars. 

H. Kottek, Die Hochshulen in Palastina u. Babylonien, JJLG, 
1905. 

CHRONOLOGY AND CALENDAR. 


J. von Gumpach, Uben den altjiidischen Kalendar, Brussels, 1848. 

A. Kistner, Der Kalender der Juden, Karlsruhe, 1905. 

D. Sidersky, Etude sur l’origine astronomique de la chronologie 
juive, Paris, 1914. Cf. MGWJ 1914, 382-384. 

FE. Mahler, Handbuch der jiidischen Chronologie, Leipzig, 1916. 


. ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 313 
PAGE 
CUSTOMS. 

Ff’. I. Grundt, Die Trauergebraéuche der Hebrder, Leipsic, 1868. 

S. Klein, Tod u. Begrabnis in Palastina zur zeit der Tannaiten, 
Berlin, 1908. Cf. REJ LX., 110-1138. 

J. L. Palache, Das Weinen in jiid. Literatur, ZDMG 1916, 251-6. 


J. Rabbinowicz, Der Todtenkultus bei den Juden, Frankfort- 
am-M, 1889. 


Adolph Biichler, Das Ausgiessen von Wein u. Ol als Ehrung bei 
den Juden; MGW, 1905, 12-40. 

A. Wiinsche, Der Kuss in Bibel, Talmud u. Midrasch, Breslau, 
Lols 


EDUCATION. 


W. Bacher, Das altjtidische Schulwesen, JJLG VI., pp. 48-81. 

E. van Gelder, Die Volksschule des jiid. Altertums nach talmud 
u. rabbinischen Quellen, Berlin, 1872. 

J. Lewit, Darstellung der theoret. u. prakt. Padagogik im jiid. 
Altertum, Berlin, 1896. 


GHOGRAPHY. 


W. Bacher, Rome dans le T. et Midrash, REJ, Vol. XXXIIL., 
187-196. 

P. Berto, La temple de Jérusalem, REJ, Vol. LIX., 14-35, 161- 
13y lek ee loo. 

I. Goldhor, Admat Kodesh, Jerusalem, 1913. 

S. Klein, Beitrage zur Geographie u. Geschichte Galilaas, Leip- 
sic, 1909. 

S. Krauss, Les divisions administratives de la Palestine 4 
Pépoque romaine, REJ, Vol. XLVI., 218-236. 


ETHICS. 
H. G. Enelow, Kawwana, The Struggle for Inwardness in Ju- 
daism, in Studies in Jewish Literature....in honor of Kaufmann, 


Kohler. pp. 82-107. 

M. Gtidemann, Moralische Rechtseinschrainkung im mosaisch- 
rabbinischen Rechtssytem, MGWJ 1917, pp. 422-448. 

A. Katz, Der Wahre Talmudjude, Berlin, 1893. 

k. Kohler, Die Nachstenliebe in Judentum, Cohen Festschrift, 
pp. 469-480. 

A. Kohut, The Ethics of the Fathers. A series of lectures, New 
York, 1885. New edition edited by Dr. B. A. Elzas, New York, 1920. 

J. Z. Lauterbach, The Attitude of the Jew, etc. Yearbook C. C. 
AR. 21921; 

Luzzatto, Israelitische Moraltheologie, deutsch von L. E. Igel, 
Breslau, 1870. 

S. J. Moscoviter, Het nieuve Testament en de Talmud, Rotter- 
dam, 1884. 


314 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 
PAGE 

H. Oort, Evangelie en Talmud uit het oogpunt der zedelijkheid 
vergeleken, Leyden, 1881. 

H. Oort, The Talmud and the New Testament, London, 1883. 

fF’, Perles, Zur Wirdigung der Sittenlehre des Talmuds, in his 
Juidische Skizzen, Leipsic, 1912, pp. 114-124. 

J. Scheftelowitz, Grundlagen einer Jiidischer Ethik, MGWJ 
1912, pp. 129-146, 359-378, 478-495. 

M. Steckelmacher, Etwas iiber die “leichten u. schweren” Gebote, 
Schwarz Festschrift, pp. 259-268. 

S. Stein, Materialen zur Ethik des Talmuds, Vol. I., Die Pflich- 
tenlehre, Frankfurt-am-M., 1894. 

S. Stem, Das Problem d. Notliige im Talmud, JJLG, V5 DD: 
206-224, 384. 


INDUSTRY AND ECONOMICS. 


F’. Goldmann, Der Olbau in Paldstina in der tanndit. Zeit; 
MGW4J 1906, 563-580, 707-728; 1907, 17-40, 129-141. 

S. Klein, Weinstock, Feigenbaum u. Syckomore in Palistina in 
Schwarz Festschrift, 389-402. 

E. Lambert, Les changeurs et la monnaie en Palestine, RE, 
Vole lse2 7-244 -°017) ee ted 

J. Z. Lauterbach, Weights and Measures, JE XII., 4838- 490. 

M. Mainzer, Der Jagd, Fischfang u. Bienenzucht bei den Juden 
in der tannait. Zeit, Frankfort-am-M., 1910. 

S. Meyer, Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud, Berlin, 1878. 

P. Rieger, Technologie u. Terminologie der Handwerke in der 
Mischnah, Vol. I.: Spinnen, Farben, Weben, Walken, Berlin, 1894. 

M. Salmonoski, Gemiisebau u. Gewachse in Palastina zur Zeit 
der Mishnah, Berlin, 1911. | 

M. B. Schwalm, L’Industrie et les artisans. juifs 4 Vepoque de 
Jésus, Paris, 1909. 

H. Voglestein, Die Landwirtschaft in Paldstina zur Zeit der 
Mishnah, Berlin, 1894. 


LAW. 

a. In General. 

M. E'schelbacher, Recht und Billigkeit in der Jurisprudenz des 
Talmuds, Cohen Festschrift, pp. 501-514. 

S. Gandz, Recht (Monumenta Talmudica, Vol. II.), Vienna, 1913. 

J. Kohler, Darstellung des talmudischen Rechtes, Zeitschrift 
fur vergleich. Rechtswissenschaft, Vol. 20, 1908, pp. 161-264. Cf. 
V. Aptowitzer, MGW/J, 1908, 37 ff. 

M. Mielziner, Legal Maxims and Fundamental Laws of the Civil 
and Criminal Code of the Talmud, Cincinnati, 1898. 

A. Perls, Der Minhag im Talmud, Lewy Festschrift, pp. 66-75. 


M. W. Rappaport, Der Talmud u. sein Recht, Berlin, 1912. 
Courts. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETc. 315 
PAGE 

L. Fischer, Die Urkunden im Talmud, zugestellt, erklart, und 
mit den Ausgrabungen verglichen. Berlin, 1912; JJLG, IX, 47- 
197; 

S. Funk, Die Gerichtshofe in nachexil. Judentum, MGW, 1911, 
pp. 33-42, 699-712. Cf. A. Karlin, MGWJ, 1913, 24-31; Funk, 
pp. 501-506. 

H. Heinemann, Das Konigtum nach biblisch-talmudischer Recht- 
sauffassung, JJLG, X., 115-190. 

Evidence. 

J. Blumenstein, Die Verschiedenen Hidesarten nach mosaisch- 
talmudischen Rechte u. die Falle ihrer Anwendung, Frankfurt- 
am-M., 1883. 

Z. Frankel, Die Eidesleistung der Juden, Dresden, 1840. 

J. Horovitz, Zur rabb. Lehre von den falachen Zeugen, Frank- 
furt-am-M., 1914. 

ile, Das Gesetz uber das gerichtliche Beweisverfahren nach 
mosaisch-thalmudischen Rechte, 1885. 

A. Gulak, Yesode hamishpat haibri. 4 vols., Berlin, 1922. 

J. S. Zuri, Mishpat hatalmud. Warsaw, 1921. 


CRIMINAL LAW. 


D. W. Amram, Retaliation and Compensation, JQR, a LUD: 
191-211. | shea” 

M. Bloch, Das mosaisch-talmud. Se ree ier eetahe on Buda- 
pest, 1901. Cf. MGW, 1902, 381-388. 

A. Buchler, Die Todesstrafen der Bibel u. der jiidischen nach- 
biblischen Zeit, MGWJ, 1906, pp. 589-562, 644-706. 

A. Buchler, Vy enterrment des eaninols d’aprés le Talmud et le 
Midrasch, REJ 46: 74-88. 

A. Buchler, Die Strafe der Ehebrecher in der nachexilischen Zeit, 
MGW, 1911, pp. 196-219. 

J. Goitein, Das Vergeltungsprinzip im bibl. u. talmud. Straf- 
rechte, Mag. 1892-3. 

J. Horovitz, Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn, Cohen Festschrift, 

pp. 609-658. 

S. Mandl, Der Bann, Brunn, 1898. Cf. MGW, 1898, 524 f. 

S. Ohlenburg, Die Bibl. Asyle in talmud. Gewande, Munich, 1895. 

A. Perls, Der Selbstmord nach der Halakha, MGWJ, 1911, 287- 
295. 

I. Steinberg, Die Lehre vom Verbrechen im Talmud, Stuttgart, 
1910. Cf. MGW, 1916, 429-431. 

Ch. Tschernowitz, Der Einbruch nach bibl. u. talmud. Rechte: 
Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXV., pp. 443- 
458. 

Ch. Tschernowitz, Der Raub nach bibl. talmudischem Recht, 
Zeitschrift fiir Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXVII., 187- 
196. 


316 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, Etc. 
PAGE 
H. Vogelstein, Notwehr nach mosaisch.-talmud. Recht, MGW, 
1904,“pp. 5138-5383: 
J. Weismann, Talion u. offentliche Strafe im mosaisch. Rechte, 
Leipzig, 1913. 
CIVIL LAW. 


L. Auerbach, Das jiidische Obligationenrecht, Berlin, 1871. 

M. Bloch, Das mosaisch-talmud. Erbrecht, Budapest, 1890. 

M. Bloch, Der Vertrag nach mosaisch-talmud. Rechte, Budapest, 
1898. . 

H. B. Fassel, Das mosaisch-rabbin. Civilrecht, 2 vols., Gross- 
kanischa, 1852. 

N. Hurewitsch, Die Haftung des Verwahrers nach talmud. Recht, 
Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, XXVIII., 425- 
439. 

I. Lewin, Die Chasaka des talmud. Rechts, Stuttgart, 1912. 

J. Marcuse, Das Biblisch-talmud. Zinsenrecht, Konigsberg, 1895. 

N. A. Nobel, Studien zum talmud. Pfandrecht, Cohen Festschrift, 
pp. 659-668. 

A. Wolff, Das jiidische Erbrecht, Budapest, 1890. 


JEWISH LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 


David W. Amram, The Jewish Law of Divorce, Philadelphia, 
1896. 

J. Bergel, Die Eheverhaltnisse der alten Juden im Vergleiche 
mit den griechishen u. rémischen, Leipsic, 1881. 

A. Billauer, Grundztige des biblisch-talmud. Eherechts, Berlin, 
1910. 

L. Blau, Zur Gesch. des jiid. Eherechts, Schwarz Festschrift, 
pp. 193-209. 

A. Bichler, Familienreinheit u. Familienmakel in Jerusalem vor 
dem Jahre 70, Schwarz Festschr., pp. 133-162. 

L. Fischer, Die Urkunden im T. Eherechtliche Urkunden, JJLG, 
IX, pp. 103-197. 

S. Krauss, Die Ehe zwischen Onkel u. Nichte, in Studies in Jew- 
ish Literature in honor of K. Kohler. pp. 165-175. 

L. G. Lévy, La famille dans l’antiquite israélite, Paris, 1905. 

L. Low, Eherechtliche Studien (in Schriften, III., Szegedin, 
18933? ppm 18-384)2 

Israel Mattuck, The Levirate Marriage in Jewish Law, in Studies 
in Jewish Literature in honor of K. Kohler. pp. 210-222. 

Ch. Tschernowitz, Das Dotalsystem nach der mos.-talmud. 
Gesetzgebung, Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechstwissenschaft, 
XXIX, pp. 445-473. 


E. Weill, La femme juive. La condition légale d’aprés la Bible 
et la Talmud, Paris, 1874. 


ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 317 
PAGE 
K. Weissbrodt, Gattenpflichten nach Bibel u. Talmud, Berlin, 
1891. 
LINGUISTICS. 


Z. Rabbiner, Beitrage zur hebraischen Synonymik in T. u. Mid- 
rasch, Vol. I., Synonyme Nomina, Berlin, 1899. 


MEDICINE. 

W. Ebstein, Die Medizin im N.T. und im Talmud, Stuttgart, 
1908. 

M. Grunwald, Die Hygiene der Juden, Dresden, 1911. 

J. L. Katzenelson, Die Normale u. die Pathelogische Anatomie 
in der althebr. Literatur u. ihr Verhdltnis zur altgriech. Medizin, 
St. Petersburg, 1889; trans. into German, by R. Kirshberg, His- 
torische Studien aus dem pharmakolog. Institut zur Dorpat, Vol. 
5 (1896), pp. 164-296. 

L. Kotelmann, Die Opthalmologie bei den alten Hebriern, Ham- 
burg, 1910. 

L. Low, Zur Medizin u. Hygiene, Shriften, Vol. III., pp. 368- 
406, Szegedin, 1898. 

J. Preuss, Biblisch-talmud. Medizin, Berlin, 1911. Cf. Imm 
Loew, MGW, 1912, 167-115; H. Illoway, Jewish Review, Vol. 4, pp. 
175-185. | 

M. Rawitzkit, Die Lehre vom Kaiserschnitt im Talmud; Vir- 
chow’s Archiv fiir patholog. Anatomie, Vol. 80 (1880), pp. 494- 
503. 

A. Rosenzweig, Das. Auge in Bibel u. Talmud, Berlin, 1892. 

D Schapiro, Obstétrique des anciens Hébreux d’apres la Bible, 
les Talmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques, comparée avec la 
tocologie gréco-romaine, Paris, 1904. 


PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY. 
R. Wohlberg, Grundlinien einer talmud. Psychologie, Berlin, 
1902. 
L. L. Mann, Freedom of the Will in Talmudic Literature. 
C.C.A.R. Year Book, Vol. 27, pp. 301-337. 


THEOLOGY. 

J. Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature, 
London, 1912. 

G. Dalman, Der leidende u. sterbende Messias der Synagoge im 
erst. nachchristl. Jahrtausend, Berlin, 1888. 

M. Duschak, Biblisch.-talmud. Glaubenslehre, Vienna, 1873. 

J. Klausner, Die Messianischen Vorstellungen des jiid. Volkes 
im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, Berlin, 1904. 

M. J. Lagrange, Le Mesianisme chez les Juifs, Paris, 1909. 

Israel Lévi, Le péché originel dans les anciennes sources juives, 
Paris, 1909. 


318 ADDITIONAL NOTES, CORRECTIONS, ETC. 
PAGE 

L. Léw, Die talmud. Lehre vom Géttlichen Wesen, Schriften, 
Vol. I., pp. 177-186, Szegedin, 1889. 

C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance, JQR, 
1904, pp. 209-257. 

F. C. Porter, The Yecer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine 
of Sin, Biblical and Semitic Studies, Yale University, N. Y., 1901. 

Solomon Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, London, 
1909. 

F. Weber, Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud u. ver- 
wandter Schriften, Leipsic, 1897. 


INDEX TOPSUB] ECES TAN DENAMES 


Aaron b. Chayim, on Hermeneu- 
tics,7128; 

Abadim, a Minor Treatise, 296. 

Abaye (Nachmani), Amora, 48; 
teachers, Rabba and R. Jo- 
seph, 49; at Pumbaditha, 50; 
his colleague, Raba, 50; in ar- 
guments with Raba, 50, 50n; 
faueht Rei Papa, ol; enswer- 
ing question, 240; debates 
with Rabba, Raba, R. Papa, 
Rabina I, Rv Dime, 261; sup- 
ports Rabba in debate, 262, 
263; authorities on, 293. 

Abaye, the elder, 293. 


Abba Areca, called Rab, 43, 291; 
Semi-Tana, Amora, 39; school 
of, makes additions to Siphra, 
19: Babylonian schools of, 20, 
51: disciple of Jehuda Hanasi, 
38, 39; nephew of R. Chiya, 
39: teacher of Mar Samuel, 
44: opinions disputed by Mar 
Samuel, 44; disciples, R. Assi, 
AD alt: Huna, R. Chisda, R. 
Shesheth, 46; differs from 
Mar Samuel, 225, 2023 
tigating question of, 238; 
Siphra de be, explained, 230% 
R. Assi and, 291; authorities 
ceyahy 48a 


Abba b. Abba, father, teacher 
of Mar Samuel, 44. 


Abba b. Abuha, father-in-law of 
R. Nachman b. Jacob, 47, 292. 

Abba b. Chana, father of Rabba, 
47; friend of Levi, 290. 


Abbahu, Amora, 45; friend of 
R. Ame, R. Asse, 45; knew 
Greek, 45; controversy over 
Christianity, quoted in Tal- 
mud, 45; associate of R. Zera, 
46; succeeded by R. Jeremiah, 
48; ridicules a question, 255n; 
authorities On; 291,292. 

Abba Saul, Tana, 36. 


inves- 


Ab Beth Din, of Sanhedrin, 22; 
R. Nathan, 35, 37. 

Abina, R. v. Rabina. 

Aboda Zara, Masechta of Nezi- 
kin, nature of, 12; transla- 
tions, Latin and German of 
Babylonian Talmud, 90; of 
Mishna, 302; authorities on, 
282; MS., 299; for references 
to, v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
ences. 

Aboth, v. Pirke Aboth; Masech- 
ta of Nezikin, nature of, 12; 
Tosephta to, 37; not in Pales- 
tinian or Babylonian Talmud, 
60, 61; ethical teachings in, 
267; translations, English, 88, 
302, 308; translations of Her- 
ford, Taylor, and Strack, 302; 

- Jewish Encyclopedia on, 282; 
v. Special Mishnaic Refer- 
ences, 37. 

Aboth de R. Nathan, 37; nature 
of, 63; editions with notes, 63; 
rules of Hillel in, 124n; eth- 
ical teachings in, 267; Jewish 
Encyclopedia on, 296; Eng- 
lish translation of, 303. 

Abraham b. David, Rabbi, on 
writing down Mishna, 6n; 
criticism of Maimonides’ Tal- 
mudical Code, 67; commentary 
on Eduyoth, 69, 297; Hasa- 
goth Rabed of, 74; on rules 
of R. Eliezer, 128. 

Abraham de Boton, R., Lechem 
Mishna of, 74. 

Absolute Infinitive, law extend- 
ed, in use of, 126, 126n. 

Abstinence, disapproved, 278. 

Absurdity, of an argument, 259. 

Abtalion, one of Zugoth, 23. 

Academies, v. Schools; Jabne, 
Jamnia, 25; reopened, 35; 
Lydda, 26, 42, 287; Beth Shea- 
rim, 30, 37; Emmaus, 31; Ar- 
discus, 81; Tekoa, 34; Usha 


319 


320 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


35; Sepporis, 37; Tiberias, 37, 
42, 293; Mishna expounded at, 
40; Caesarea, 40, 289; Nahar- 
dea, Sura, Pumbaditha, 40, 
46; R. Judah at Pumbaditha, 
46; at Sura, 292; decay of 
Palestinian, 48; at Nares, 51; 
Assemblies at Nares, prohib- 
ited, 54; R. Dime at Pumba- 
ditha, 52, 294; Palestinian, in- 
terrupted, 59; debates between 
members of, 261; anonymous 
debates at, 264; Baraithoth 
studied at, 285, 286; Jehuda 
Hanasi, 289; R. Chanina b. 
Chama at, 290; R. Jochanan 
b. Napacha head of, 290; un- 
der R. Chisda, 292; at She- 
chan-Zib, 292; tradition of, 
295; at Pumbaditha closed by 
Romans, 295; v. Babylonian 
and Palestinian. 

Acceptable and valid cases, 197. 

Accidents, in public, private, 
159; loss through, 262. 

Accountability, of man to God, 
OT 0 oils 

Acha, R., Semi-Tana, 39. 

Achaybs RabawRe Amora, 
294; at Pumbaditha, 52; suc- 
ceeds Mar Zutra, succeeded 
by Rab Gebiha, 52; refuting 
an argument, 255n. 

Acha of Difte, R., Amora, 53; 
debates with R. Ashe, 262. 
Achai b. Huna, R., Amora, 55; 

not'a Sabora, 295. 

Achsai (Abbasi), Jacob, Graetz 
on, 69n; translated commen- 
tary on Seder Nashim, 69. 

Acts of Apostles, on Rabban 
Gamaliel, the Elder, 286. 

Ad absurdum, argument to, 
TSO MLA 1e 

“Adam,” used for all men, 279. 

Additional Comments of Yom 
Tob Lipman Heller, 70. 

Adler, Elkan, collection of MSS. 
of, 299. 

Adler, E. N., on Kethuboth, 282. 

Adler, 8., Kobetz al Yad, 6n; 


on Talmud, 84; on ethics in 
Talmud, 110. 

Admon, Tana, 25. 

Adultery, woman suspected of, 
11;yone,borniok Alt 


Adverb, as basis for Gezera 
Shava, 199. 

Aethiopian, substituted for Gen- 
tile, 79n. 


A fortiori, inference, 130; im- 
plied, 212; argument from, 
248.6201" 

Africa, study of Babylonian 
Talmud in North, 62; Kair- 
wan, 65; R. Isaac Aflasi in, 
(ps 

Agada, Midrash, hermeneutic 
rules of, 30; interpreted by R. 
Eleazar, 30; of Talmud rec- 
ords Jehuda’s sayings, 33; 
Resh © Lakish; originalgin, 
43>! Ri eJoshuad= ona ces ae 
Simlai skilled in, 43; Sab- 
oraim add to, 55; as part 
of. ‘Gemara, 56, 1/61],58.295; 
value of, 56, 56n; different 
types of, nature of, 56n; omit- 
ted from epitome of Rif, 72; 
collections of, 76; bibliography 
on, 98, additional, 3038, 311, 
312; translations of, 90; 92; 
method of interpretation of, 
118, 127; hermeneutic rules 
for, 120; Gezera Shava in, 
149n* "a? fortior. inveeo baa 
Talmud, 295; authorities on, 
295, 296: 

Agadatha, 224. 

Agadic, ethics, 267; sayings 
translated by Rafram b. Papa, 
294. 

Agent, use of, 125. 

Aggravating, purpose of, 171, 
pEFOUL. 9 Ey is) 

Ahabat Zion v. Jerushalaim, of 
B. Ratner, 298. 

Ahai of Shabha, Sabora, au- 
thor of Sheeltot, 295. 

Akabia b. Mahalel, Tana 24; 
J. Kaempf on, 286. 

Akiba (b. Joseph), systematizes 
oral law, 5; in Tosephta, 17; 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES S21 


disciples, Jehuda b. Ilai, 19, 
a2;,  1mon b. Jochai, 20; 33, 
284; controversy with R. EI- 
azar b. Azaria, 27; a disciple 
of Nachum, 27; controversies 
with Ishmael, 28, 121; of a 
proselyte family, 29; member 
of Sanhedrin, teacher, ar- 
ranges law, discussions with 
Tanaim, 29; died a martyr, 
29; controversies with R. Jose 
the Galilean, 30, with R. 
Simon b. Nanos, 30; disciples 
Oi,9750,0932, 178: -ordains’ RR. 
Meir, 31; work carried on by 
R. Meir, 32; disciple, R. Jose 
by Chalatta,.33;7 in: prison, 34. 
disciples, R. Elazar b. Sha- 
mua, o4;ec003) Riv Klazay ~b. 
Jacob, R. Nechemia, 35; re- 
lationship to R. Joshua b. 
Korcha, 385, 385n; rules of 
Akiba,_125; opposed by R. 
Ishmael, 126; supplanted by 
R. Ishmael’s rules, 127; de- 
fends R. Joshua’s argument, 
139; introduced juxtaposition 
analogy, 177n; extension and 
limitation of, 183; rules of, 
not used, 187; on all em- 
bracing principle, 279; school 
of, 2838; Midrashim extant 
of, 288; methods of school of, 
284; Siphra originated with, 
285; Siphre Zuta from School 
of, 285; authorities on, 287. 
Albrecht, R., grammar of, 300. 
Alexander, J., on Jews in Pal- 
estinian Talmud, 104, 105. 
Alfasi, R. Isaac, in Africa, 72; 
compendium of, 72; method 
of, 73; methods followed, 91; 
published with Mordecai, 298. 
Algazi,.Solomon, on Talmud, 83. 
Alien, idolater for, 79n. 
Alleviating, purpose of, 
Nive ee) 
Almsgiving, 274. 
“Also”, use of, 125. 
Alternatives anticipated, 200. 
Ame, R., Amora, 45; disciple of 
R. Jochanan, head of Acad- 


171, 


emy at Tiberias, 45; friend, 
Abbahu, 45; R. Zera, asso- 
ciate of, 46; submitted to R. 
Huna, 46; schools for chil- 
dren, 290; authorities on, 291. 

Amemar, Amora, 52; at Nah- 
ardea, 52; R. Dime, teacher, 
52; debates with R. Ashe, 
262; authorities on, 294. 

Am-ha-arets, did not study Tal- 
mud, 108. 

Ammonite, regarded as a bas- 
tard, 150,215.15 1S basis: for 
Gezera Shava, 150, 151. 

Amora, Amoraim; principal, R. 
A DDAUMATEeECAa ios Chlein OL 
Palestine, 42; defined, 40n, 
224; explanation in name of, 


198; quoted, to point source, 
201; memra of Babylonian, 
229; quotation from, 223; 


conflicting opinions of, 227; 
objects to memra, 228; sup- 

' ports argument, 248; refuted 
proposition of, 254; debated 
principle of law of, 261; R. 
Leviek. Judah lll4290sPal- 
estinian, 292; authority on, 
23 

Amoraim, in Tosephta, 17; dis- 
tinguished from Tanaim, 23; 
R. Abba Areca, one of, R. 
Janai, R. Jonathan, R. Joch- 
anan b. Napacha, 39; teach- 
ers called, 40; definition of, 
40; Palestinian, ordained by 
Nasi, 40; use of title, extent 
of period of, 41; number of 
generations of, 41; first gen- 
erations of, Palestinian, 41, 
41n; Babylonian, 48; bibliog- 
raphy on, 42n; second gen- 
eration of Babylonian, Pales- 
tinian, 45; third generation 
of Babylonian, Palestinian, 
48; fourth generation of 
Babylonian, 51; fifth genera- 
tion of Babylonian, 53; last 
and sixth generation of, 54; 
discussion of, in Mishna, 56; 


322 


language of, 61; New Hebrew 
used by, 61; Agadic interpre- 
tation of, 128; on eligibility 
to Sanhedrin, 141; Gezera 
Shava of, 147, 148; differ on 
source of law, 201; memra of, 
2245) agree. 225s" ditler in 
opinion, 225; have equal au- 
LOORILY eee (2a OD me COMLeSE 


about law, 232; refutation of, 


233, 255n; difference between 
Tanaim and, 235; supported 
by Baraithoth, 235; quoted to 
support, 263; differ from 
earlier generations, 264; used 
Tosephta, 283; 
Talmud known by Babylon- 
1AD oO CU Mm Rem Osh ama. 
Levi, one of Palestinian, 291; 
three Zeras, 292. 

Amsterdam, Moses Ribkes of, 
75; edition of Babylonian 
Talmud at, 79. 


Amude Golah, code by R. Issac’ 


b. Joseph, 74. 
Analagous cases, 
ance of, 211. 
Analogy, v. Gezera Shava, of 
expressions 123; from*an- 
other passage, 124, 127; v. 
Hackesh; as-we-find, 127; 
definition of, 142: real or 
formal, 142; from juxtapo- 
sition, v. juxtaposition; rules 
restricting application of, 
179, 180; limited or unlimited 
elects. Olu lL oUt eVicinaon: 
181; examples of, 181; argu- 
ment from, 248, 250; refuted, 

ZO s BoOD 

Analytical method, 42; of Rashi, 
70; OLmEeruinoro. se: L; 

Ancona, Talmud destroyed at, 
on, 

Animals, responsibility for, 
140; different, used together, 
1G -estrayeniiie 

Anonymous, opinions, adopted 
by Jehuda Hanasi, 5; opin- 
ions of Mishna, 191, 198; pas- 
sages of Mishna and Bara- 


Palestinian | 


overabun- | 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


itha, 214; teacher, 215;.sup- 
porting, Baraitha, 215; ques- 


tion, 244; discussion or de- 
bate, 264; statements in 
Siphre, 285; scholars argue 


with R. Jehuda b. [lai, 288. 
Answer, to question, 237-246; 
anticipated, 240; to objection, 


241, 242, 260; anonymous, 
264. 
Antecedent, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
132; premise in, disputed, 
136. 


Anticipation of answer, 240. 

Anti-climax, in cases, 196; in 
Mishna, 212. 

Antigonos of Socho, disciple of 
Simon) the Just, 22: 

Antokolski, on Raba, 294. 

Application of a provision of 
Mishna debated, 261. 

Apocryphal appendices, to the 
Talmud, 63. 

Aptowitzer, on Agada, 295. 

Arabia; MSS. ‘tromya77: 

Arabic, used by Maimonides in 
commentary, 68. 

Arachin, Masechta of Kodashim, 
native of, Biblical basis for, 
12; Jewish Encyclopedia on, 
282; v. special Talmudic ref- 
erences. 

Aramaic, supplants Hebrew, 
15; definition of Gemara, 56; 
of Agada, 56n; West, lan- 
guage of Palestinian Gemara, 
61; East, in Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 61; form for Biblical 
law, 122. 

Archaeological bibliography, on 
Talmud, 98, 304, 312. 

Ardiscus, Academy at, 31; R. 
Elazar at, 34. 

Argumentation, 247-253; nega- 
tive, 254; mutual, in debate, 
261. 

Arguments, to prove or dis- 
prove a question, 247; classi- 
fication of, 248; direct or indi- 
rect, 248, 252, 253; from com- 
mon sense, 248, refuted, 256; 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


from authority, 248, refuted, 
256-257; from construction 
and application, 248, 249, 
250, refuted, 257; from anal- 
ogy, 248, 250, refuted, 257, 
258; a fortiori, 248, 251, in- 
direct, 248, 251, refuted, 259): 
refuted, 254- 260; absurdity 
in; unparelleled, ‘polite mode 
of refuting, 260; in debate, 
261. 

Aristotle, on labor, 272. 

Artificial, interpretation, de- 
rash, 118; necessity for, 1203 
E2de "123. 

Aruch, of R. Nathan b. Jechiel, 
lexicon for Talmud, 81; addi- 
tions to Benjamin Mussaphia, 
81; corrected by Kohut, 81, 
255n; Enelow on, 300. 

Asceticism, disapproved of, 278. 

Ashe, R., Amora, 51; restored 
Sura, 49, 59; sketch Otol: 


dialectic ‘method, compiler of 


material in Gemara, SUE 4: 
o9s pupil of R: Cahana, 52; 
friend, Amemar, 52; did not 
complete Palestinian Talmud, 
59n, 60; on corporal punish- 
ment, 148; way of answering 
objections, 239; debates with 
Amemar, Rabina, Mar Zutra, 
262, 294; with R. Acha, 262; 
relations with Huna b. Na- 
than, 294; pupil, Rafram II, 
294; authorities on, 294. 

Asher b. Jechiel, R., Hilcoth 
Sepher Thora of, 63; on time 
of Sopherim, 63; on Nedarim, 
66; compendium of, 73, 298; 
included in Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 79; additional commen- 
tary of, 298; disciple of R. 

_ Meir of Rothenburg, 299. 
Asia Minor, R. Meir’s death in, 
287. 

Ashkenazi, D. B., Shaare Yeru- 
shalayim, 298; " Chrestomathy 
Of.9501, 

Assi, R., Amora, 45; Babylon- 
ian, 45, 29 bis disciple Ota Re 


323 


Jochanan, head of Academy, 
at Tiberias, not Amora Rab 
Asse, friend of R. Abbahu, 45; 
associate of R. Zeira, 46: 
submitted to R. Huna, 46: 
schools for children, 290: 
compared with Rab, 291; at 
Nahardea, 291. 

Assi, Re Amora, Babylonian, 
colleague Oheharsaphrar dis 
ciple of Rab, in Sura, 45. 

Astonishment, in, 21073 tyne! of 
question, 237, 238. 

Astronomical, documents in 
Talmud, 103. 

“AS-we- find analogy”, 127, 159, 
160n, 162, 179. 

Atonement, ‘Day of, v. Yoma. 

Authenticity, of Mena ques- 
tioned, 227. 

Authorities, of Mishna, 22-39; 
in conflict, 240, 241: ques- 
tions laid before, 245 : argu- 
ment from, 248, 249; argument 
from, refuted, 256, O57: later, 
supported R, Joseph, 263: of 
earlier generations discussed, 
264; mentioned by name, 264; 
difference in grade of, 268; 
of Siphre, 285. 

Authorship, of an anonymous 
Mishna, 203; of two opposite 
opinions, 235. 

Auto-da-fe, of Talmud, 77, 77n. 

Auxiliaries, to study of Talmud, 
81-87, 300: lexicons, 81-82, 
300; grammars, 82, 300: 
chrestomathies, 2. 300; in- 
troductory works, 83; in mod- 
ern languages, "4. 85, 301; 
historical works, 85; encyclo- 
pedic works, 86, 301- 302: gen- 
eral reference, 86- 87. 

Azai, on an all embracing prin- 
ciple of law; 279. 


B 
Baba, gate, section of Mishna, 
193. 
Baba Bathra, Masechta of Nez- 
ikin, nature of, Biblical basis 


324 


for, 11; translations, French 
of Babylonian Talmud, 91; 
English, 303; MS. of 299; in 
Tosephta of Khelim, 283; 
Jewish Encyclopedia on, 282; 
vy. Special Mishnaic and Tal- 
mudic References. 

Baba Kamma, Masechta of 
Nezikin, Biblical basis for, 
11; translations, French of 
Babylonian Talmud, 91; Eng- 
lish 303s) MS. OL mr 299 see ID 
Khelim, 283; Jewish Encyclo- 
pedia on, 282; commentary of 
R. Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb 
on, 298; v. special Mishnaic 
and Talmudic references. 
Baba Metzia, Masechta of Nezi- 
kin, nature of, Biblical basis 
for; 114) jin Khelimjym2s3, 
translations, German of Bab- 
ylonian Talmud, 90; French, 
91; English, 303; commen- 
tary of Jehuda b. Loeb, 298; 
MS. of, 299; authorities on, 
299; v. special Mishnaic and 
Talmudic references. 


Babli, v. Babylonian. 


Babylonia, Mechilta brought to, 
19; academies at, 40; R. Levi 
b. Sissi migrates to, 42; R. 
Nathan migrates from, 289; 
R. Elazar, R. Ame, R. Assi, 
R. Chiya, R. Simon b. Abba, 
natives of, 45; R. Zera, 46; 
Rabba, 47; R. Jeremiah, 48; 
Mechuza, seat of learning in, 
50; for nations of the world, 
Vie Atelier) ) sageert TAIEGe 
schools of, differ from Pales- 
tinian, 198, 199; report from 
Palestinian to, 246; R. Assi 
aoe 

Babylonian, v. academies; v. 
Schools; v. Talmud; Amor- 
aim, 17; R. Nathan the, 37; 
teachers, 41; Amoraim, per- 
iod of; Amoraim of first gen- 
eration, 41, 48, of second 
generation, 45, 46, of third, 
48, 49, of fourth, 51, of fifth, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


58, of last and sixth, 54; 
teachers called Saboraim, 54; 
authorities quoted by Pales- 
tinian, 62; memra, 229; Am- 
oraim knew Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 289, 290. 

Bacher, W., On Agada, 56n, 
295; R. Jehuda b. Ilai, 288; 
R. Nathan, Bar Kappara, R. 
Jose b. Juda, R. Chiya, R. 
Oshaye, 289; Chanina b. 
Chama, R. Gamaliel III, R. 
Judah, II, R. Judah, III, Levi 
b. Sissi, Jochanan b. Napacha, 
R. Simon b, Lackish, 29030K- 
Joshua b. Levi, R. Simlai, 
R. Elazar b. Pedath, R. Ame, 
291; R. Chiya b. Abba, Simon 
b. Abba, R. Abbahu, R. Huna, 
R. Chisda, R. Shesheth, 292; 
R. Nachman b. Jacob, Rabba 
b:-Chana, sUlla,@ HilteaeLt: 
Jeremiah, R. Jose, R. Jonah, 
Rabba b. Huna, Rabba b. 
Nachman, R. Joseph, 293; 
Raba, R. Nachman b. Isaac, 
Ri) Papa, R. Ashe, RoeDime; 
Mar Zutra, Amemar, Mar b. 
R. Ashe, 294; on Talmud, 
301; on Halacha le Moshe mi- 
Sinai, on Terminology of Tal- 
mud;,.209, 9510; 

Baer, on R. Chiya, 289. 

Bahr, H., with Rosenthal, trans- 
lation of Sota, 308. 

Bank, on R. Zera, 292; R. Ashe, 
294, 

Baraitha, nature of, “2ij2s8o, 
286; quoted in Gemara,. 21; 
use of, contrasted with Mish- 
na, spurious, 21; critical re- 
searches on, 21n; authorities 
of, 22; teacher of, 23; quotes 
R. “Jehuda, 932; recordgmis 
Elazar, 34; opinions mofmh, 
Jochanan the Sandelar in, 34; 
opinions of Simon b. Gamaliel 
in, 86;3//Tanaim in}'oosepen 
ciples accepted in, 40; com- 
piled by Mar Samuel, 44n; 
recited by Tana, 40n; Rabba 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 325 


on, 49; quotation uses new 
Hebrew, 61; of R. Nathan, 
638; of R. Eliezer, 128; law 
derived in, 201; opinions of, 
203; conflicting passages of, 
215; inconsistency of opin- 
ions in, 218; quotations from, 
220-223; contrary teaching to, 
224; memra in conflict with, 
228; corroborating Memra, 
229; correct reading of, 231; 
used to support opinion, 235; 
containing a _ difference be- 
tween Tanaim, 234; support- 
ing a contesting teacher, 235; 


contradiction between two 
passages of, 241; supports 
argument in Talmud, 248; 


conflict with decision of, 254; 
introduced into debate, 263; 
on asceticism, 278n; on eth- 
ics; 267; traditions included 
injec: 

Barclay, Joseph, Mishna trans- 
lated into English by, 88. 

Bar Cochba, war of, 29. 

Bar Kappara, Simon, in Tos- 
ephta, 17; disciple of Jehuda 
Hanasi, 37; Mishna of, 281; 
dames 289;" teacher .of © R: 
Hoshaya, R. Joshua b. Levy, 
289, 291; at Caesarea, 289; 
authorities on, 289. 

Bartinoro, v. R. Obadya 

Basel, printed edition of Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 79. 

Basis, of particulars of a law, 
202, 

Bassfreund, J., on Eliezer b. 
Hyrkanos, 207; on editions of 
Mishna, 301. 

Bastard, prohibited from con- 
gregation, 150, 151; illustra- 
tion of Gezera Shava, 150, 
iNsak. 

Beast, general term, 164, 166; 
death caused by, 172. 

Becharoth, Masechta of Koda- 
shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
Vv. Special Talmudic Refer- 
ences. 


Bede, English author, 105. 

Beer, G., on Sabbath, 303. 

Beer ha-Gola, sources of Shul- 
chan Aruch, Moses Ribkes, 75. 

Beginning, case at, 192. 

Bekiin, school at, 26, 

Ben Azai, Va Azai: Simon, dis- 
ciple of Akiba, 31, 178; death 
of, 288; applies analogy from 
juxtaposition, 178. 

Ben Zoma, Simon, disciple of 
Akiba, 31; death, 288. 

Bene Bathyra, leaders of San- 
hedrin, 27. 

Benedictions, v. Berachoth. 
Benveniste, Joshua, commentary 
on Palestinian Talmud, 70. 
Berachoth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 9; in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 60; Syrileio 
on Palestinian Talmud, 2S 
German translation, 90, 92: 
Commentaries, 71; English 
translation, 92, 310: of Mish- 
NaseoUg wave special Talmudic 
References and Mishnaic Ref- 

erences. 

Berdizewsky, on Agada, 295. 

Bergman, J., on Agada, 295. 

Berman, S., on R. Zeira, 292. 

“Beriyot, ” used for “man, SC OOMAYE 

Berlin, R. David Fraenkel hE: 
TED ‘collection of Agada pub- 
lished at, 76; Codice of Tal- 
mud at, 77: MSS. of Mishna 
to be found at, 78; edition 
Babylonian Talmud at, fig) 

Bertinoro, v. Obadya. 

Beruria, wife of R. Meir, 32. 

Beth Hadash, commentary of 
Sirkes on Tur, goes 

Bethar, fall of, 35. 

Beth Joseph, of R. Joseph Karo, 
on Turim, 75. 

Beth Samuel, on Eben Ha-Ezer 
Olle Samuel Dae Lise Lo. 

Beth Shearim, academy at, 30, 
37. 

Betrothals, v. Kiddushim. 

Betza, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
lical basis for, nature of, 10; 
Tosaphoth of R. Perez on, 


326 


296; v. Special Mishnaic & 
Talmudic References. 


Biblical, laws in Aramaic, 122; 
Mosaic law as, 122n; support 
for law, 123, 152, 153; proto- 
type for Kal ve-Chomer, 131; 
inference, 131, 132; support 
for statement, 154; text, vow- 
els in, 185; passage, 193; 
source investigated in Mish- 
na, 200, 201; reference to pas- 
sage in Mishna, 202; teach- 
ing of ethics, 267; ethics give 
new lustre, 269; teachings for 
man’s duty, 270; verse drawn 
from Midrash, 284. 

Bibliography, on language of 
Mishna, 15; on Talmudic sub- 
jects, 93-102; additional, on 
editions of Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 299; on Agada, 93, 303, 
811, 312; archaeological, 93- 
94, 304, 312; biographical, 94, 
304, 312; historical, 312; in 
Modern Languages, 312; chro- 
nology and calendar, 95, 312; 
customs, 95, 304, 305, 318; 
dialectics, 95; educational, 95, 
304, 312; ethics, 95, 96, 304, 
305, 3138, 314; exegesis, 96, 
305; geography, history, 96, 
306, 313; law, 96, 97, 306, 314- 
315; judicial courts, 97, 306; 
evidence, 97, 306; criminal, 97, 
306, 315; civil, 98, 316; inher- 
itance and testament, 98, 306; 
police, 98; marriage and di- 
vorce, 98, 99, 307, 316; Slav- 
env) (99; 307 se \linorss)D efcce 
tives, 307; Linguistics, 97, 
307, 308, 316; Mathematics, 
99; Medicine, Surgery, 100, 
308, 317; Natural History and 
Sciences, 100, 308, 309; Par- 
seeism, Poetry, 100; Proverbs, 
Maxims, Parables, 101, 308; 
Religious Phliosophy and His- 
tory, 101, 308; Supernatural- 
ism and Superstition, Popular 
Treatise and Lectures, 101, 

102; Industry and Economics, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


314; Philosophy and Psychol- 
ogy, 317; Theology, 317-318. 
Biccurim, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 10; Latin 
translation of Palestinian Tal- 

MuUGw Gs: 

Billerbeck, P., on R. Akiba, 207. 

Bills and notes, embezzlement of, 
167, 184. 

Binyan Ab, generalization of 
special ‘laws, 123,127, 810% 
theory and formula of, 157; 
illustration of, 158, 159; from 
one special provision, from 
two special provisions, 159, 
160; method of, 160; types of, 
160n; illustration of general- 
ization of two special provis- 
ions, 161; several special pro- 
visions, 161; examples, 161, 
162n; defense of, 182; refuta- 
tion of, 255n; Biographical 
matter, bibliography on, 94, 
S04wSL2: 

Bischoff, E., translations of Tal- 
mud, 302. 

Blau, L., on R. Jochanan b. Zac- 
cai, 286, 

Blaufuss, on Aboda Zara, 282. 

Blindness, disability for judge, 
154, 

Bloch, J. S., on Talmud, 84; on 
unwritten Mishna, 281. 

Block, Ph., on R. Simon b. Ga- 
maliel, 288. 

Blood, covering of, 169; used for 
trespass-offering, 738; aveng- 
er, 178. 

B’ne Brak, school at, 29. 

Baruch, R. Joshua Boas, glosses 
in "Lalmud,.75) Lora, Open. 
Massoreth Ha-Shas, 776. 

Bodek, A., on R. Jehuda Ha- 
Nasi, 289. 

Bodleian Library, at Oxford, 68. 

Bologne, Talmud destroyed at, 
77n. 

Bomberg, Daniel, printed first 
edition of Babylonian Talmud 
complete, 78, 79; first edition 
of Palestinian Talmud, 80. 

Bondi, on R. Jochanan b. Na- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


pacha, 290; on R. Elazar b. 
Pedath, 291. 

Bouvier, on penal law, 135n. 

Braunschweiger, M., Die Lehrer 
der Midrash, 238n. 

Bread, unleavened, 
176n. 

British Museum, MSS. of Tal- 
mud at, 299. 

Broom, on Gezera Shava, 144; 
on Hackesh, 153; on general 
and particular, 164n; on ex- 
planation from context, 174n. 

Broyde, Is., R. Chiya, 289. 

Brull, N., on Ebel Rabbathi, 64; 
on Talmud, 84. 

Brull, Jacob, Mebo Hamishna on 
Tanaim, 28n; on signs for 
memory, 80; on Talmud, 84, 
86; on written Mishna, 281; 
on argument of Tosephta, 
283; on R. Jochanan b. Broka, 
288. 

Buchholz, B., on Tosephta, 297. 

Buchler, A., on R. Simon b. Ga- 
maliel, 288; on R. Jehuda Ha- 
nasi, 289. 

Burial, rules for, 63, 275; care 
LOD eo (9s 

Buxtorff, Johann, Lexicon Tal- 
mudicum, 81; on value of Tal- 
mud, 103. 


(Dr Los 


C 

Cabala, in Agada, C.. 

Caesarea, Academy at, Mishna 
expounded at, 40; R. Oshaya, 
Runs ochanan. at,42°. RR. Ab- 
bahu of, 45; Bar Kappara at, 
289. 

Cairo, R. Simon Kahiro of, 72. 

Cahana b. Manyome, R., disci- 
ple of R. Juda b. Jecheskel, 
52 


Cahana b. Tachlifa, R., Amora, 
51; disciple of Raba, teacher 
of R. Ashe, at Pumbaditha, 52. 

Calendar, bibliography on, 95, 
312; festive, in Talmud, 110. 

Callah, additional Masechta to 
one Talmud, 64; nature of, 64. 

Calmness, in, 210. 

Cambridge, Codice of Talmud at, 


327 


77; fragment of Pesachim at, 
77; MS. of Mishna at, 78. 
Shane at Isaac, on Talmud, 

83. 

Canaanite, for nations of the 
world, 79n. 

Capital, punishment, 134; judg- 
ed by higher court, 148; for 
witchcraft, 170. 

Case, at beginning, middle, end, 
192; unexpected subsequent, 
196; particular circumstances 
of, in Mishna, 200; analogous, 
211; superfluous, 212; omis- 
sion of, 212; not provided for 
in Mishna, 226; refers to dif- 
ferent, 241; two or more al- 
ternatives of, 242; altered by 
certain circumstances, 263. 

Casuistry, of R. Jeremiah, 48; 
of Chisda, 292. 

Celibacy, discouraged, 277. 

Censors, mutilate Talmud, 79. 

Ceremony, manner of perform- 
ing, 310; elements for, 310. 


Ceremonial, law and _ observ- 
ances, basis of distinction, 
278, 280. 

Chabiba, Joseph R., Nimuke 


Joseph, notes accompanying 
Rite a: i 

Chacham, of Sanhedrin, 32. 

Chagiga, Masechta of Moed, 
Biblical basis for, 10; trans- 
lations, English of Babylon- 
ian Talmud, 92, 303; Latin of 
Palestinian Talmud, 92; v. 
special Mishnaic and Tal- 
mudic references. 

Chagiz, Jacob, Techilath Choch- 
ma of, 70, 88; on Hermeneu- 
ties LO: 

Chajes, Zebi Hirsch, on Talmud, 
84 


Challa, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 9; Latin 
translation of Palestinian 
Talmud, 92. 

Chama, R., of Nahardea, 51; at 
Pumbaditha, 51; succeeded by 
R. Zebid, 52. 

Chometz, leavened bread, 176n. 


528 


Chanan, Tana, 25. 

Chananel, Rabbenu, 
tary on Talmud, 67. 

Chananiah b. Teradyon, father- 
in-law of R. Meir, 32. 

Chanina b. Chama, R., Amora, 
41; biography, 41; disciple of 
R. Jehuda Hanasi, 41, 290; 
title bestowed on, contempo- 
raries of, 42; chief lecturer of 
Academy, 290; answering ob- 
jection, 239; ridicules a ques- 
tion, 255; succeeds R. Ephes, 
289. 

Chanina, R., Tana, 24; chief of 
the Priests, 25. 

Chapter, single division of Ma- 
sechta, 7; v. Perak. 

Charity, a duty, 274. 

Children, in relation to parents, 
276; schools for, 290. 

Charizi, Jehuda, translated Mai- 
monides’s commentary on Ze- 
raim into Hebrew, 68. 

Chelkath Mechokeh, of R. Mo- 
ses, on Eben Ha-Ezer, 75. 

Chiarini, L., translates Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 3038. 

Chisda, R., Amora, 45; disciple 
Ola DO Oued Unaee.o. 
292; head of Academy at 
Sura, 46; opposed by R. She- 
sheth, 47; succeeded by Rabba 
bar Huna, 49; taught Rabba, 
Raba, 49, 50; debates with 
Huna, R. Shesbeth, 261; Acad- 
emy under, 292; a casuist, 
292; '\Kairam ib, <Papa, pupil 
of, 294; authorities on, 292. 

Chiya, the elder, disciple of Je- 
huda Hanasi, 17, 37, 39; Semi- 
Tana, 89; compiler of Toseph- 
ta, 39, 283; son of, 42; Mishna 
of, 281; an author of Siphra, 
289; authorities on, 289. 

Chiya b. Abba, Amora, 45; 
brother of Simon, 45, 292; 
migrated from Babylonia, dis- 
ciple of R. Jochanan, 45; un- 
cle of Rabba bar bar Chana, 
293; authorities on, 292. 

Chizkia (Hezekiah), son of R. 


commen- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Chiya, quoted in Talmud, 42; 
revised Mechilta, 284. 

Chomer v. major of Kal ve-Cho- 
mer; defined, 130. 

Choshen Mishpat, Tur, of R. 
Jacob, a Code, 74; commen- . 
Lavy OllwiD: 

Chrestomathies, of Talmud, 81, 
300-301. 

Christianity, R. Abbahu’s con- 
troversies over, 45; censors 
mutilate passages on, 79. 

Christians, references to, ex- 
purgated from Babylonian 
Talmud, 79, 79n; on value of 
Talmud, 103, 104; dogmatists 
and R. Simlai, 291. 

Chronology, Bibliograph on, 95, 
Be 

Chullin, Masechta of Kadashim, 
nature of, 12; German trans- 
lation of, 303; v. Special Mish- 
naic and Talmudic References. 

Church, against Talmud, van- 
dalism of, 77; favors celibacy, 
277; literature, R. Tarphon 
hab, AY bs 

City, The, substituted for Rome, 
79n; of Refuge, 158, 175,9186. 

Civil Laws, Tur Choshen Mish- 
pat of R. Jacob, 74; Bibliog- 
raphy on, 98, 306, 316; testi- 
mony in, 118; application of 
Gezera Shava in, 146; ritual 
case not applicable in, 180. 

Climax, in cases, 196. 

Codes, of Talmud, 73-76; rab- 
binical, accepted Rab Joseph, 
263; of Mishna, 281; in Aha- 
bat Zion v. Jerushalaim, 298; 
of Mordecai b. Hillel, with 
Alfasi, 298. 

Codices, of Sedarim and Ma- 
sechtoth, 77. 

Cohen, A., on Maimonides, 297; 
translation of Berachoth, 310. 

Cohen, Sabbathai, R., Sifte, Co- 
hen of, on Shulchan Aruch, 
75. 

Cohn, Leopold, on Agada, 295. 

Columbia College, MSS. of Pe- 
sachim, Moed Katon, Megilla, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Zebachim of Babylonian Tal- 
mud at, 77, 77n. 

Combinations, v. Erubin. 

Command versus volition, 139. 

Commentaries, in Mechilta, 
Siphra, Siphre, 18; Siphra of 
Abraham b. David, 19n; to 
Sopherim, 63n; on the Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 65-68, 296; 
exclusively on Mishna, 68, 69, 
70, 297; features of, 69; on 
Palestinian Talmud, 70; of 
Maimonides, 78, 297; in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 79; of Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 80; on Bible 
agree with Gezera Shava, 
145n; Midrashim, 283; on Pe- 
sachim, 296; not Rashi’s, on 
Nedarim, 296; not R. Ger- 
shom’s, 296; of Gaonim to Se- 
der Teharoth, 297; of R. Meir 
of Rothenburg, 297; of Hai 
Gaon, on Teharoth, 297; on 
Eduyoth, of Abraham b. Da- 
vid, 297; of Zerakiah Ha- 
Levi, on Kinnim, 297; Mod- 
ern, Tiphereth Israel, 297; of 
Bertinoro, 298; other modern, 
298; Strack on, 298; of Jo- 
seph Caro on Tur, 299; Beth 
Hadash of Joel Sirkes, 299; 
additional, English, 310; on 
thirteen rules of Ishmael, 
309; list of, 310. 

Commentators, on Bible during 
Middle Ages, 187. 

Common Sense, 1938; argument 
from, 248; refuted, 256; 
against, 260. 

Commonwealth, of Israel, sec- 
ond, 267. 

Community, v. relations, duties 
LOmma TO: 

Comparison v. Heckesh. 

Compendium, of Asher, 73, 298; 
included in printed edition of 
Talmud, 79; in Ahabat Zion 
v. Jerushalaim, 298; of Mor- 
decai b. Hillel, 298. 

Comprehensive, terms, 208. 

Conclusion, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
132; restricted, 134; in the 


329 


consequent, 136; refutation of 
final, 186; contradicts pre- 
mise, 140; from contents of 
Mishna, 205; hypothetical, 
219. 

Conduct, man responsible to God 
for 2s OAZ2il. 

Conflict, of opinions, how set 
down, 191; between an indi- 
vidual and majority, 192; of 
authoritative passages, 214. 

Conjugal v. Relations. 

Conjunctions, in Mosaic law, 
124; extension in use of, 126. 

Consequent, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
182; conclusion in, 136. 

Consistency, of opinions, 232, 
233. 

Constantin, banished religious 
teachers, 48. 

Constantius, banished religious 
teachers, 48. 

Construction, argument from, 
248, 249, 250; refuted, 257; 
objected to, 2638. 

Constructional, Gezera Shava, 
148; theory of, 145, 146, 147. 

Context, explanation from the, 
v. explanation. 

Contradiction, in question, 239, 
240; attempt to remove, 241. 
Contradictory, in disharmony 
with, 252; proposition, 258. 

Contrary, on the, 256. 

Contros, name for Rashi, 67. 

Controversy, civil litigation, 
154; through different opin- 
ions, 193; between Amoraim, 
255; none in Memra, 226; of 
R. Simlai with Christians, 
291° 

Corner v. Peah. 

Corporal Punishment, like crim- 
inal case, 148; R. Ishmael, R. 
Usha on, 148. 

Correction, of Memra, 230; of 
Mishna reading, 281. 

Corroboration, of memra, 229. 

Coucy, R. Moses of, 67. 

Counter-argument, 216; to com- 
mon sense, 256; to close con- 


330 


struction, 257; to indirect ar- 
gument, 258. 

Country, v. Relations, duties to, 
ra theve PAG 

Courts, v. Sanhedrin, when open, 
1533 Unorder indemnification, 
172: Judicial, bibliography on, 
oT 306. 

Cracow, R. Meir Lublin of, 68; 
Yom ob wotwe7 0. edition of 
Talmud, 70, 79, 80. 

Creed, no distinction ee Car eth 

Cremona, Talmud destroyed at, 
fale 

Criminal Law, Bibliography on, 
O77 BUG, 315: testimony in, 
118; involving corporal pun- 
ishment, 148. 

Criticism, of Bible in Talmud, 


110. 

Customs, Bibliography One 9b, 
304, 305, 313; in Talmud, "110: 
supports for, D2e8 


D 

Daily Sacrifice, The, v. Thamid. 

Dalman, G. H. ’ Lexicon of, 300; 
grammar of, 300. 

Damages, v. Nezikin; treated 
in Baba Kamma, 11; types 
Ofte GIS atO property, 194, 

Danby, ii) translation of San- 
hedrin, Mishna and Tosephta, 
B02; 

Darke Emorai, 
tices, 107. 
Darke Hamishna, of Frankel, 
6n, 84; on Tosephta, Lene ton 
Baraitha, Z1n>*, on Tanaim, 

Zon 

Darke Moshe of R. Moses Is- 
serles, on Turim, 75. 

Darshan, Ben Zoma, 288. 

David, Jacob R., of Slutsk, on 
Palestinian Talmud, 299. 


heathen prac- 


David b. Samuel Halevi, Re 
Ture Zahab, on Shulchan 
Aruch, 75. 


Davidson, S., on Talmud, 74. 

Day vot ‘Atonement, v. Yoma; 
rules for, 144. 

Dead body, igs 

Debate, definitions and terms 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


of, 261; illustrations of, 261, 
262, 264: anonymous, 264; 
principal debaters i In; 2oLy 262. 

Deception, a sin, 273. 

Decisions y. Horayoth; of ma- 
jority given by Jehuda Ha- 
nasi, 5; Simlai, Gezara Shava, 
143% not in accordance with 
established principle, 213; of 
Amoraim, 224, 225; of Tan- 
aim, final, 295 « of higher au- 
thorities, 245; "quoted to sup- 
port argument, 268; of law 
fixed by Saboraim, 294 = Of, 
Tosaphoth, 68; abstracted by 
Jacob b. Ashari, 73; of an- 
tiquity in Talmud, 103. 

Decrees, subject for discussion, 
104. 

Deduction, from 
Mishna, 205. 

Defence, argument in, 242n. 

Defectives, laws on, bibliography 
on, 307. 

Definite article, 
use of, 126. 

Deity, in Talmud, 112. 

Delitzsch, on value of Talmud, 
104. 

Demai, Masechta of JZeraim, 
biblical basis for, 9; com- 
mentary on Jerushalmi of 
Frankel, 71. 

Demonstrative pronoun, exten- 
sion in use of, 126, 126n. 

Depositary, gratuitous, 262.2635 
paid, 262, 268. 

Derash, method of interpreta- 
tion, 117, 118; circumstance 
necessitating, 120: reason for, 
T28; 

Derech Eretz, nature of, 64; 
reference to, 64, 64n Rabba on, 
140; ethical teachings ins 267% 
English translation of, 3038. 

Derech Eretz Zuta, nature of, 
64; reference to, 64. 

Derenbovrg, J., on Talmud, 84; 
on R. Elazar b. Azaria, 287, 

De Sola, D. A., Mishna trans- 
lated into English by, 88. 

Deuteronomy, a basis for Mid- 


contents of 


extension in 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 331 


rash, 283; basis for Siphre of 
school of R. Akiba, 284; basis 
for Midrash of school of R. 
Ishmael, 285; v. Special Bib- 
lical References. 

Dialectical, method, 50; adopted 
Dyetarapa sw leaner AshGroL: 
acumen in debate, 261, 2638. 

Dialectics, Bibliography on, 95; 
acumen for, necessary in San- 
hedrin, 141. 

Dienemann, on commentary of 
Rashi, 296. 

Dignity, of man, 269. 

Dictionaries v. Lexicons. 

Dictionary of the Talmud, of 
M. Jastrow, 81. 

Dietary Laws, treated in Chu- 
lineal 

Difference, of opinions, 191; 
method of propounding, 192; 
between individuals, 192; rea- 
son of, 193; principle underly- 
ing limiting point of, 217; be- 
tween two Amoraim, 225; of 
opinion in Memra, 231-236; in 
reading of Mishna, 231; con- 
cerning explanation of a 
term, 231; concerning reason 
of law, 232; principle under- 
Ine eOLupOPiniony 200." OL 
opinion, discussed, 233;  be- 
tween Amoraim, 234; and 
Tanaim, 235; answer to ob- 
jection of, 241; between 
schools of Shammai and Hil- 
lel, 24, 286. 

Difficulty, in question, 239; in 
ALSumMent, 202) 20a, Jo4d. 

Dikduke Sopherim, contains 
work of Rabbinowicz on Bab- 
ylonian Talmud, 80, 80n. 

Dilemma, objection set forth as, 
mae we 2AS. 

Dime b. Chinena, R., Amora, 51; 
at Pumbaditha, 52, 294; suc- 
ceeded by Rafram, 52; taught 
Amemar, 52; debates with 
Abaye, 261; authorities on, 
294. 

Direct argument, 248. 

Disagreement in question, 239. 


Disciples, debate with teachers, 
261, 262; support teachers, 
263. 

Discussion, in controversy, 193; 
of difference of opinions, 233; 
minor, in Talmud, 261; Ge- 
mara on differences of earlier 
generations, 264; anonymous, 
of law, 267; of Talmud, ethics 
in legal, 267. 

Dissenting teacher, 217, 219. 

Distinction, omission of, 208. 

Division, of opinions, 191; of 
Mishna, 7, 281. 

Divorce Law, Bibliography on, 
Srey fil Wied Meh 

Divorces v. Gittin. 

Dogmatical Agada v. Agada. 

Dogmatists, Christian, contro- 
versies with R. Simlai, 291. 

Domestic Relations v. Relations. 

DGreD Ora VemUonshoy es OL eLavrl. 
Weiss, on writing down Mish- 
na, 6n; on Tosephta, 18n; on 
Mechilta, Siphra, 19n; on Ba- 
raitha, 21n; on Amoraim, 42n; 
on compilation of Palestinian 
Talmud, 58n; on Talmud, 84. 

Dosa, R., Tana, 25; of school of 
Hillel, 26. 

Dough, The, v: Challa. 

Duenner, I. H., on Tosephta, 
18n; on Eduyoth, 282. 

Dukes, L., on language of Mish- 
na, 282 

Dust, covering blood, 169, 170. 

Duties, of man, 270; motives 
for performing, 271; of self- 
preservation and cultivation, 
of industry and activity, 272; 
of justice, truth, peace, and 
CHATILY me lotr Ore Charityenc tc, 
275; of relations, of life, 275; 
to country, to community, to 
fellow-men, 276, 277. 

Dyhernfurt, printed edition of 
Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 


1D) 


Eagle, Rabbis on, 158. 
Ebel Rabbathi, on mourning. 
Semacoth, 64; nature of, 64; 


oo INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


bibliography on, 64n; Eng. 
lish translation, 303. 

Eben Ha-Ezer, Tur, of R. Ja- 
cob, code, 74; commentary on, 
75. 

Economics, bibliography on, 314. 

Edels, Samuel R., commentary 
of, 68. 

Editions, printed of Talmud, 77, 
299; of Mishna, 78; of Baby- 
lonian Talmud, ‘78-80; of 
Siphre, 285; of Palestinian 
Talmud, 80, 299. 

Education, bibliography on, 95, 
S040 30a ol 2: 

Eduyoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
nature of, 12; not in Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 58; not in 
Babylonian, 60; reasons, 61; 
R. Abraham b. David com- 
mented on, 309; commentary 
on, 297: authorities on, 282; 
v. Special Mishnaic Refer- 
ences. 

Edzard, G. E., Latin translation 
of Aboda Zara, 90. 

Effect, of general and particu- 
lar ytd: 

Egg, the v. Betza. 

Egypt, Maimonides in, 68. 

Ehrlich, A. B., chrestomathy of, 
82. 

Eight Chapters of Maimonides, 
297: 

Kisenmenger, on value of Tal- 
mud, 103. 

Elazar, R. of Modin, authority 
in Agada, 30. 

EilazaribyAzaria, hk. Vana 255 
biography, 27; discussion with 
R. Jose the Galilean, 30; au- 
thorities on, 287. 

Elazar b. Elazar Kappara v. 
Bar Kappara. 

Hlazar (Eliezer) b. Jacob, R., 
Tana, 31; disciple of Akiba, 
member of Sanhedrin at Usha, 
35; Siphre Zuta attributed to, 
288. 

Elazar b. Jose, R., Semi-Tana, 
39; authority on, 289. 

Elazar (b. Pedath), R., Amora, 


45; native of Babylon, .45; 
disciple of R. Jochanan, 45; 
taught R. Zeira, 46; author- 
ities on, 291. 

Elazar (b. Shamua); Re Tanase 
81; disciple of Akiba, 34, 288; 
at Nisibis, 34; his disciple, R. 
Jehuda, 34, 37; visits R. Meir, 
34; quoted in Mishna and -Ba- 
raitha, 34; confused with R. 
Elazar b. Pedath, 45; born 
at Alexandria, 288; authori- 
ties on, 288. 

Elazar b.-Simon,;)R., Lana.soa:s 
disciple of R. Simon b. Gama- 
hel, of R. Joshua b. Korcha, 
38; authority on law, assist- 
ed Romans, 38; authorities on, 
289. 

Elazar b. Zadok, Tana, 36. 

Elders, former, 23. 

Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean, 
R., teacher, 30; hermeneutics 
of, 80,127; Baraithasotel2Ze- 
refutes inference, 138; re- 
futed by R. Joshua, 139; ex- 
tension and limitation of, 183. 

Eliezer, R., of Touques, Tosa- 
phothsots 67. 

Eliezer (b. Hyrkanos), R. Tana, 
25; disciple of Jochanan b, 
Zaccal, 26; excommunicated, 
26; teacher of Akiba, 29; R. 
Mathia, a: disciple ol,mes0- 
leaning towards Christianity, 
287; authorities on, 287. 

Eliezer b. Jacob, R., Tana, 25; 
method of, 26. 

Eliezer b. Zadok, R., Tana, 25. 

Elmslie, W. A. L., translation 
of Aboda Zara, 302. 

Emmaus, academy at, 31. 

’En ben ella, 195, 310. 

Encyclopedic works, on Talmud, 
Soes0lee502: 

End, case at, 192. 

Einelow, H. G., on Agada, 295; 
on Aruch of Nathan b. Jech- 
jel, 300. 

English, translations of Mishna, 
88; of Talmud, 92, 302; litera- 
ture compared with Talmud, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 333 


105; translations of Mishna 
and Tosephta, 302. 

En Jacob, of R. Jacob Ibn Cha- 
bid, 76. 

Ephes, R., contemporary of R. 
Chanina b. Chama, 42, 290; 
reopened school at Lydda, 42; 
succeeds Jehuda Hanasi, 290; 
authorities on, 290. 

Epicurean, substituted for He- 
retic, 79n. 

Epitomes, of Talmud, 72-73; of 
Jehuda Gaon, of Simon Ka- 
Nico wOlehwusaaceA irasi, 
asa bos 

Epstein, on Saboraim, 295; on 
commentary, on Talmud, 296; 
on commentary of Seder Te- 
Narounecol: 

Eriurt. Moat, 283: 

Erubin, Masechta of Moed, na- 
ture of, 10; Tosaphoth of R. 
Samson on, 296; Mishna, 
translated into English, 88; 
English translation of Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 303; v. Spe- 
cial Talmudic References. 

Esther, Megilla discusses read- 
ni O1 910; 

Estimations v. Arachin. 

Eternity in Talmud, 112. 

Ethical, Agada, v. Agada; doc- 
uments in Talmud, 103; teach- 
ings of Bible, 267; of Talmud. 


267; teachings of Talmud 
outlined, 269-280; maxims, 
279; 


Ethics, bibliography on, 95, 304, 
305, 313, 314; interpreted in 
Talmud, 110; Adler, on, 110, 
111; Talmudic, 267-280; and 
religion, 267; against nature, 
277; spirit of Talmudic, 280. 

Evidence, bibliography on, 97, 
306. 

Evil, inclination to, 269. 

Europe, Babylonian Talmud in, 

. 62; libraries of, codices to be 
POuUNGeIN eS (iL 

Ewald, F. C., German transla- 
tion of Aboda Zara, 90. 


Exceptions, from generaliza- 
tions, 194. 

Exceptional, no analogy from, 
180, 

Exchange v. Themura. 

Excisions v. Kherithoth. 

Exegesis, bibliography on, 96, 
305; of Rabbis in Talmud, 
110; Hermeneutics for, 117, 
143; modern scientific, 186. 

Exegetical Agada, v. Agada, 
Gezera Shava, 143; example 
Olga ay Ab: 

Exilarch, Abba bar Abbahu, 47, 
292; Huna Mari, 49; Mar Zu- 
tra, 52; Mar Ukba, 291; Huna 
b. Nathan, 294. 

Exodus, basis for Midrashim, 
283; basis for Mechilta, of 
Ishmael, 18, 28; of R. Simon 
b. Jochai, 284; Halachic or 
Tanaitic Midrashim on, 284; 
Siphre, original Midrash on, 
284; v. Biblical References. 

Exorbitant, Gezera Shava, 147, 
148. 

Explaining words and phrases 
of Mishna, 198. 

Explanation, from context, 124, 
TOfali4, 617 introduced by 
question, 198; by name of 
Amora, 198; difference con- 
cerning, 231. 

Expounders, of Mishna, 39-55; 
of law, 268; Ben Zoma, one 
of, 288. 

Expression, incongruity, tautol- 
ogy of, 207; objected to mode 
of, 208; incorrect or indefinite, 
209; meaning of, 226. 

Extension, and limitation of 
Mishna, 124; uses of, 125, 126; 
in contradiction to general 
and particular, 183, 184; the- 
ory of, 182, 183, 184. 

Ezekiel, refuted by R. Jehuda, 
33; v. Special Biblical Refer- 
ences. 

Ezra, founder of Great Synod, 
22; ancestor of R. Elazar, 27; 
Pentateuch esteemed by, 120. 


334 


F 
Fallacy, result of Gezera Shava, 
148. 


Fasts) vie Laanith:® onieyoma, 
144, 
Fathers, Sayings of, v. Aboth. 


Feast Offering, v. Chagiga. 
Fellow-men, relation of man to, 


212 hOLg) OWSILO,aetce ivan” 
used for, 279. 
Festivals, v. Moed, in Talmud, 


110; 

Feuchtwang, on Eduyoth, 282; 
on difference between Sham- 
mai and Hillel, 286. 

Fez, R. Isaac Alfasi of, 72. 

Fone to promises, 273. 

Fiebig, P pe tep al Aboda Zara, 282. 

Fine, in case of restitution, 180. 

First Born, the, v. Becharoth. 

First Fruits, The, v. Biccurim. 

First Gate v. Baba Kamma. 

Fischer, B., Chrestomathy, 82. 

Fischer, ieey ‘on value of Talmud, 
104. 

Food, clean and unclean, 158. 

Forbidden Fruits, use of, 137. 

Forest, man killed in, 159. 

Formal, analogy, 142. 

Fowls, unclean, 174. 

Fraenkel, R. O., of Dessau, 
teacher of Mendelssohn, com- 
mentary on Talmud, 70. 

France, study of Talmud in, 62; 
Tosaphists Olano ;oepre Moses 
0,474; 

Frankel, ©. P., on Talmud, 87. 

Frankel, Lis on Mishna written 
by Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; on To- 
sephta, 18n; on Mechilta, 19n; 
on Siphra, ‘19n; on Baraitha, 
Zs On Tanaim, Zoe ON Amo- 
raim, 42n; on compilation of 
Palestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
R. Ashe as compiler, 59n; 
commentary on Berachoth, 
Peah, and Demai in Palestin- 
ian Talmud, 70; other com- 
mentary, 71: on Talmud, 84, 
85; on Hermeneutics, 129: on 
Gezera Shava, 148n, 152n: on 
“astonishment,” 238: on Zu- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


goth, 286; on Jochanan b. 
Broka, 288; on Agada, 295. 
Frankfort, printed editions of 

Talmud at, 79. 

Free-Will, of slaves, 140; of 
man, 270; 

Freimann, on commentary on 
Lalmud; 92965 310 sone com- 
mentary of R. Asher, 298; on 
ReeVarphon2s7. 

French Translations, of Baby- 
lonian. Talmud) °91°9 (3023 -s00 
Palestinian Talmud, 92. 

Friedman, M., edition of Me- 
chilta, 19n; of Siphre, 20n. 

Fuenn, Lexicon of, 300. 

Funk, S., on Akiba, 287; on 
Abba Areka, Mar Ukba, Mar 
Ukba IT, 291: -on2har be unas 
R. «Chisda, Rs, Nachmangab: 
Jacob, 292; on Rabba b. Nach- 
mani, R. Joseph b. Chiya, 293; 
on Raba, R. Nachman b. Isaac, 
R. Papa, R. Ashi, R. Gebiha, 
294. 

Furst, J.. on Amoraim, 42; on 
Talmud, 85; on R. ‘Jehuda 
Hanasi, 289; Lexicon of, 300. 

Furiz, King, persecution of, 53, 
54. 


G 


Gajus, on Roman marriage, 
149n. 
Gamaliel, the Elder, Rabban, 


Tana, 24; his son, 25; refutes 
Jose b. Tadai, 140, 141; teach- 
er of Paul, 286; authorities 
on, 286. 

Gamaliel II, Rabban, Tana, 25; 
grandson ‘of Gamaliel is: Nasi, 
Patriarch, 26; excommunicat- 
ed R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, 
26; quarrels with R. Joshua, 
27; teacher of Jochanan, b. 
Nuri, 29; authorities on, 286, 
oe 

Gamaliel III, Patriarch, 41, 290; 
bestows title on R. Chanina b. 
Chama, 42; authorities on, 
290. 

Gamaliel IV, R., Patriarch, 45. 

Gaonie, Literature, Palestinian 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 335 


Talmud in, 296; Babylonian 
Talmud in, 296; commentary 
on Seder Teharoth, 297. 
Gaonim, opinions of, in Mishne 
Torah, 73; Sherira, one of, 6n. 
Garment, restitution of lost, 171. 
Gaster, M., on Kethuboth, 282. 
Gastfreund, on Akiba, 287. 
Gebiha, Amora, 52, 294: at Pum- 
baditha, succeeds R. Acha b. 


Raba, 52; succeeded by Ra- : 


crams 53; authorities on, 
uo2s 

Geiger, on writing down of 
Mishna by Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; 


on order Masechtoth, 8n; on | 
Mechilta, 19n; on .completion | 


of Palestinian Talmud, 58; 


on study of Talmud, 111; on | 


language of Mishna, for 
grammar, 300. 


Gelbhaus, Spay Cale dae Jehuda Ha- | 


nasi, 289. 


Geman as part of Talmud, two | 
compilations of Babylonian | 
and Palestinian, 9, 57; quotes © 
other collections, 23; work of | 
Amoraim in, 40, 56; principal | 


elements contributed by R. 


Jochanan, 42; R. Ashe, com- , 
piler of, 51, 59n; definition of | 
term, 56; classification of 
contents of, 56; of teachers of | 
West, 58; known to elder | 
commentators, 59; extent of, | 


in Babylonian Talmud, 60; 
references to missing MSS. 
in, 60; comparison of two, 61; 
language of each, 61; quan- 
tity of material in each, 61; 
Agada in each, 61; arrange- 
ment in each, 62; make no 
mention of each, 62; authori- 
ties quoted by each, 62; gram- 
mars for Babylonian, 82; dif- 
ficult to translate, 88; on cor- 
poral punishment, 148; on 
marriage contract, 149; in- 
vestigates reason of law, 193; 
general rule in, 194; excep- 
tion, to generalization in, 194; 
stated cases i wlOD: self-evi- 





dent cases in, 196; mode of 
commenting on Mishna para- 
graph, 198; source of law in, 
201; particulars of law in, 
202; authorship of anonymous 
Mishna in, 203; limiting term 
in, 204+ reference, to a cer- 
tain statement, 204; qualify- 
ing a provision of. Mishna, 
204, 205; extending a provi- 
sion, 205; inclusion and de- 
duction from, 205, 206; criti- 
cising Mishna, 207-215; in- 
consistency of principle in, 
214; conflicting passages in, 
214, 215; counter-argument 
in, 216; quoting Mishna, 220; 
Tos sephta, Baraitha in, 220, 
221; other works, 22) Zune; 
traditional reports in, 224: 
two memras_ reconciled in, 
227; differences between Amo- 
raim in, 234; between Tan- 
aim, 234, 235; on authorship 
of opposite opinions, 235; ar- 
gument a fortiori in, 251; 
Strack on, 286; d’Eretz Yis- 
rael, 296. 


General v. Terms; reason, 156; 


sense, 157; law, 162; the, de- 
fined, 163; and particular, 
defined, 163, 164; term fol- 
lowed by particulars, 164; 
Arsturulev ol. Lo4,4 1 605m gen- 
eral introduced by particular, 
165; second rule, 165; third 
rule, 1665) 1675 with particu- 
lar and general, 166, 167, 168; 
two, preceded and followed by 
particular, 168; requiring 
particular, 169; single case in- 
cluded in general law, 170; 
with similar provisions, 171; 
in dissimilar provisions, 172; 
with new provisions, 173; 
known as extension, 1838, 184; 
principle, 198, 194; rule of 
law, 213. 


Generalization, of one special 


provision, 123; of two special 
provisions, 123; v. Binyan 


336 


av refuted, 182; in Mishna, 

user of Tanain, first, 24, 
25; second, 25, 26, QT; third, 
28-31, fourth, 31. 36, fifth, 36- 
388, sixth, 39; of “Amoraim, 
first, 41- “4A, ’ second, 45-47, 
third, 48-51, fourth, 51-52, 
fifth, 53-55. 

Genesis, as early basis for Mid- 
rash, 283; v. Special Biblical 
References. 

Genizah, discoveries of, 284; of 
Schechter in Midrash, 285: 
fragments of, 298, 299. 

Gentile, Samaritan substituted 
for, 79n; Aethiopian substi- 
tuted for, 79n; and Jew, 278, 
219: 

Geography, Bibliography on, 96, 
306, 812; Neubauer on, 54n. 

Gerim, a minor treatise, 296. 

German translations, of Mishna, 
88, 303; of Babylonian Tal- 
mud,7.9057302;5303 orebales- 
tinian Talmud, 92; laws, 121n. 

Germany, study of Talmud in, 
OZ au Losaphistsa O16 4g, wmly 
Asher Ol i3: 

Gershom of Soncino, 
single Masechtoth, 79. 

Gershom, R., commentary of, 
296: 

Geschichte der Juden v. Graetz. 

Gezera Shava, analogy of ex- 
Pressions, 123,12 760145 -eMor- 
dechai Plongia on, 129; defi- 
nition, classification, formula 
for, 143; exegetical theory of, 
143; examples of, 144, 145; 
constructional, 145, 146, 147; 
exorbitant, 147-150; in Agada, 
149n; restriction in use of, 
150; rules for restricting, 150- 
152: Heckesh similar to, 152: 
limiting a LOU Lode 

Gibeath Jerushalaim, on compi- 
lation of Talmud, 58n, 84. 

Ginzberg, Louis, on origin of 
Mishna, 281; on names and 
order of Mishna, 282; on Me- 
chilta of Simon b. Jochai, 284; 


printed 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


on Baraitha, 286; on Akiba, 
287; on Bar Kappara, 289; on 
Agada, 295; Jerushalmi Frag- 
ments of, 298, 299; on Mishna 
and Talmud, 301: Ona tun 
Ben,” 310; on terms in Tal- 
mud, 310. 

Gittin, Masechta of Nashim, 
Biblical basis for,- 11a. Spe- 
cial Talmudic References and 
Mishnaic References. 

God, humility before, 267; like- 
ness of man and, 269, 279; 
providence of, 270: will of, 
270; man’s accountability to, 
270, 271; love and obedience 
to, 271, 

Golden Rule of Hillel, 273. 

Goldmann, J., Chrestomathy of, 
301. 

Goldschmidt, L., MS. of Talmud, 
299s German translation of 
Babylonian Talmud, 302-308. 

Good, 267; inclination ‘to, 269. 

Grammars, of Mishna, ibn; for 
Talmud, 82, 300. 

Gorfinkle, J., Eight Chapters of 
Maimonides, ao te 

Graetz, H., Geschichte der Ju- 
den, on compilation of Mishna, 
6n, 301; on Tanaim, 23n; on 
Amoraim, 42n; on Alfasi, 
69n on: burning of Talmud, 
77n; on Talmud, 85; on value 
of Talmud, 105; on Ri Joshua 
b. Chanania, 287: on R. Meir, 
2838 -Oneh: Judah ILE, 290860 
ie Jochanan be Napacha, 290: 
on R. Simon b. Lachish, 290: 
on R. *Simlai, (291: on "Abba 
Areca, 291; on Mar kbae 
20 Leone ne ’ Abbahu, 292 50H 
Re Huna, R,/’Chisda.si Shes- 
heth, 292; on Hillel m0), R. Jo- 
seph’ (bar Chiya), 293 « on 
aba ekeiea pasek. Ashe, "Mar 
bar Rab Ashe, 294; views of, 
criticised by Halevi, 295. 

Graubart, D., on Khelim, 202e 

Great Tavs Book, of R. Moses, 
74, 

Great Synod, contribute of Oral 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Law, 4; Men of, 22; Ezra of, 
22; Simon Just; Simon II of, 
jie 

Greek, used in language of 
Mishna, 15; known by Simon 
b. Gamaliel II, 36; preferred 
by Jehuda Hanasi, 37; by R. 
Abbahu, 46; words explained 
in Aruch, 81. 

Greenup, A. W., translation of 
Taanith, 302; of Palestinian 
Talmud Taanith, 308. 

Guedemann, on R. Joshua Db. 
Chanania, 287. 

Gumbiner, R. Abraham, Mogen 
Abraham of, on Orach Cha- 
yim, 75. 

Guttmann, M., 
Work of, 301. 


Encyclopedic 


H 

Hadrian, edict of, 29; defied by 
Judah b. Baba, 30, 32. 

Hagahoth Yerushalmi, of Elijah 
Wilna, 298. 

Hagahoth Maimuniyoth, anno- 
tations by R. Meir Ha-Cohen, 
7A, 298. 

Halacha, as section of Perak, 7; 
in Palestinian Talmud, 8; 
Midrash, 18; of R. Simon b. 
Gamaliel II, 36; subject of 
dispute between R. Chisda 
and R. Shesheth, 47; as part 
of Gemara, 56; real nature of, 
56, 56n; a division in Mishna 
Toreh, 73; interpretation of 
Midrash.) 118," 119; differs 
from Midrash Agada, 120; 
origin and development of 
Midrash, 120; Kal ve-Cho- 
mer in, 131; collection of, 191; 
majority opinion as, 192; le 
Moshe Mi-Sinai, 128, 399. 

Halachic, Midrash on Exodus, 
284; sayings translated by 
Rafram bar Papa, 294. 

Halachische Exegese, of H. S. 
Herzfeld on Hermeneutics, 
129: 

Halachoth, contradicted by Tan- 
aim, 40; Ketuoth of R. Jehu- 
dai Gaon, 72; Gedoloth of R. 


oo7 


Siman Kahiro, 72; of R. Isaac 
Alfasiy 72% 

Halevi, Joshua b. Joseph, on 
Talmud, 88; Halicoth Olam 
of, on Baraitha of Eliezer, 
128, 238n. 

Halevi, Moses, on Talmud, 87, 
301; on origin of Mishna, 281; 
on R. Eliezer b. Hyrkanos, R. 
Joshua b. Chanania, R. Ela- 
zar b. Azaria, R. Akiba, 287; 
on R. Meir, R. Jose b. Cha- 
lafta, Elazar b. Shamua, 288; 
on Bar Kappara, R. Nathan, 
289; on Babylonian Amoraim 
and Palestinian Talmud, 289; 
on R. Chanina b. Chana, R. 
Gamaliel III, R. Judah II, R. 
Judah III, on Levi b. Sissi, 
R. Simon b. Lakish, 290; on 
R. Joshua b. Levi, Abba Are- 
ka, Mar Ukba, R. Elazar b. 
Pedathe har Asse zu Lswonek. 
Huna, R. Chisda, R. Nach- 
man b. Jacob, 292; on R. Jer- 
emiah, R. Jonah b. Jose, Rab- 
banbeeNaehmant,..293 con. K. 
Josephelb. wChiya, ekhabayn kh. 
Nachman b. Isaac, R. Papa, 
RavAshes Ratram <b. Papa, 
Amemar, Mar b. Rab. Ashe, 
Rafram II, 294; on Saboraim, 
295. 

Halicoth Olam, of R. Joshua b. 
Joseph Halevi, on Baraitha of 
R. Eliezer, 128, 238n. 

Halle, on Rabban Gamaliel II, 
287. 

Hamburg, codices of Talmud at, 
i MSS ols Mishna lat. 135 
MSS. of Talmud at, 299. 

Hamburger, I., Real Encyclope- 
dia of, 6n; on Jehuda Hanasi 
on Tannaim, 6n; on Amoraim, 
42; on Agada, 56n; on Tal- 
mud, 85, 86. 

Hands, v. Yadaim, uncleanness 
of, treated in Yadaim, 14. 

Hasagoth Rabed, of Abraham b. 
David on Mishna Thora, 74. 

Heathen, practices attacked, 
107; and Jew, 278. 


338 


Heave, The, v. Therumoth, of- 
fering, by agent, 125. 

Hebraische Bibliographie, on M. 
Steinschneider, 78; on MSS. 
of Talmud, 78. 

Hebrew, new, language of Mish- 
na, 15, 16; supplanted by Ar- 
amaic, 15; mixture of Ara- 
maic and, in Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 61; commentary of Mai- 
monides translated into, 68; 
in Mishne Torah, 73; in Tal- 
mud, 108. 

Hebrew Union College, address- 
by author, 107.113 5144: 

Heckesh, 250; analogy from an- 
other passage, 127, 148; sim- 
ilar to Gezera Shava, 152; 
definition and theory of, 152, 
158, 154; from two subjects, 
1538-154; from two predicates, 
154-155; irrefutable, (155; 
Juxtaposition similar, to, 177. 

Heifer, The, v. Parah. 

Heilprin, on Rabba b. Chana, 
298; on Rabba b. Huna, 293; 
on Rabba b. Nachmani, 298. 

Heller, Yom Tob Lipman, R., 
of Prague and Cracow, com- 
mentary on Mishna, with ab- 
stract, 70; Tosaphoth sot, .in 
edition of Mishna, 78. 

Herculaneum, Talmud called a, 
106. 


Herd, and _ flock, particular 
terms, 164. 

Heretic, Sadducee substituted 
TOT on: 

Herford hae transia gone r 
Aboth, 302. 


Hermeneutics v. Rules of R. 
Nachurn, 22770124 fote Ris sh- 
mael, 295 1412.7 128 "asci- 
ence of interpretation, 117; 
derivation of, 117; similar for 
Midrash Agada and Halacha, 
120; collection of, 123; seven 
of Tilel A123 el 2 an ean OF 
of Akiba, 125, 126; literature 
on, 128, 309; exposition of. R. 
Ishmael’s, 1380ff; R. Abraham 
b. David on, 160n; thirteen 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


rules, Kal-ve-Chomer, 130- 
141; Gezera Shava, 142- ie aye 
Heckesh, 152-155; Binyan Ab, 
156-162; general. and partic. 
ular, three rules, 163-168; 
modification of, 169- Liss ex- 
planation from context, two 
rules, 174-176; additional 
rules, 177-186; argument, ref- 
utation and reinstatement of, 
182; purpose of, 186; not used 
by medigeval commentators, 
LS 

Herod, at time of Zugoth, 23; 
Sanhedrin under, 27. 

Herzfeld, on untraceable tradi- 
tion, 123. 

Hezekiah v. Chizkia. 

High Priest, marries virgin, 140, 
141. 

Hilcoth Sepher Tora, of R. Ash- 
ou on time of M. Sopherim, 
3. 

Hillel, F., on language of Mish- 
Da, cous 

Hillel, the elder, as president of 
Sanhedrin, 4, 290; first to sys- 
tematize oral law, 4; last of 
Zugoth, 22-23; school Ol goa 
Gamaliel the Elder, grandson 
of, 24, 286; disciples, Simon b. 
Gamaliel, Jochanan b. Zaccai, 
25; hermeneutics of, 123, 8b24. 
124n, 127, 130; followed by R. 
Nehunia -b. Hakana} 125; 
rules of adopted by R. Ish- 
mael, 127; illustrates Gezera, 
145, 146; Hermeneutic rules 
of, not used by Mediaeval 
commentators, 187; prevailing 
opinions of school of, 192; on 
self-preservation, 271n; on 
justice, 273n; difference be- 
tween school of Shamai and 
school of, 286; Simon, son, 
286. 

Hillel II, Patriarch, 48, 293; son 
of Judah III, 293. 

Hillelites v. School of Hillel. 

Hirsch, J., on Akiba, 287. 

Hirschenson, H., on Babylonian 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Amoraim and Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 290. 

Hirschfeld, Halachische Exegese 
on Hermeneutics, 129; on re- 
stricted Gezera Shava, 151n; 
on Agada, 295; on Maccoth, 
302. 

Historical, Agada v. Agada, 
works on Talmud, 85; bibli- 
ography, 312. 


History, Bibliography on, 96,- 
306. 
Hoelscher, G., Translation of 


Sanhedrin and Maccoth, 303. 

Hoffman, D., on Talmud, 85; on 
origin of Mishna, 281; on Mid- 
rashim, 284; on Siphre, on 
Midrash of school of Ishmael, 
285; on R. Ishmael, 287; on 
Mar Ukba, 291. 

Holiday, Sabbath more import- 
ant than, 131, 138. 

Hollander, on ordinances of Ga- 
maliel the Elder, 286. 

Homiletical, interpretation, 118; 
R. Eliezer developed, 127; 
teaching, 224; passages, eth- 
ical teachings in, 267. 

Horayoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
biblical basis for, 12; v. Spe- 
cial Talmudic References. 

Horowitz, on Amoraim’s use of 
Tosephta, 283; on Akiba, 287; 
on R. Jochanan b. Napacha, 
290. 

Horowitz, edition of, on Siphre, 
285; on Siphre Zuta, 288. 

Humility, a virtue, 267, 274. 

Huna, R., Amora, 45; disciple 
of Rab, 46; president of Acad- 
emy at Sura, authority over 
R. Ame and R. Assi, succeed- 
ed by R. Juda, disciples, R. 
Chisda, 46; Rabba, 49; his 
son, Rabba, 49; debates with 
R. Nachman, R. Shesheth, R. 
Ghisda;) 261-4 pupils#gottoek. 
Juda, 292; authorities on, 
292; discussions with Raba, 
2938: 

Huna, R., son of R. Joshua, con- 
temporary of R. Papa, disci- 


339 


ple of Raba, 292; authorities 
on,? 292. 

Huna b. Nathan, disciple of R. 
Papa, mentioned by Ashi as 
exilarch, 294. 

Husik, on Maimonides, 297. 

Hypothetical, conclusion, 219. 

Hyrcan, John, at time of Zu- 
goth, 22. 

Hyrcan, II, at time of Zugoth, 


23. 


I 

Ibn Alfual, Joseph, translated 
commentary on Moed, 68. 

Ibn Almuli, Nathaniel, trans- 
lated commentary on Seder 
Kodashim, 69. 

Ibn Chabib, Jacob, En Jacob of, 
76, 

Ibn Ezra, commentator, 187. 

Ibn Galbai, Isaac, commentary 
Or ei U: 

Ibn Gaon, Shem Tob, Migdal Oz 
of, defended Maimonides, 74. 

Ibn Tibbon, translated Shemone 
Perakim, 69. 

Ide b. Abin, R., Amora, 53; suc- 
ceeded Mar Jemar, continued 
work on Talmud, 53. 

Idolater, for alien, 79n. 

Idolatry v. Aboda Zara. 

Identical opinions, 216. 

Iggereth, of Sherira Gaon, 6n. 

Ila, R., teacher of Jonah, 48. 


Immersion, Day of, v. Tebul 
Yom. 
Implication, argument from, 


248; refutation, 257. 
Incest, 177. 


Inclinations, to good, to evil, 
269, 270. 
Incongruity, of expressions, 


207; in question, 239. 
Inconsistency of principle in 
Mishna, 213; of opinion, 218. 
Incorrect, expression, 209. 
Indefinite expression, 209. 
Indirect v. Argument; argu- 
ment, 248; refuted, 258, 259; 
reasoning, 263. 


Individual opinions, given by 


340 


Jehudah Hanasi, 5; conflict 
between majority and, 192. 
Indulgence, warning against, 

ole 

Industry, Bibliography on, 314. 

Inference v. Kal-ve-Chomer 
from major and minor, 128; 
terms used to draw an, 181, 
132; result of, outset of, most 
essential part of, end of, 
132ff; restriction in applica- 
tion of, 184-136; refutation of, 
136, 137, 138; reinstatement 
of refuted, 138, 139; sophis- 
tical, 139, 140, 141; refutated 
in conclusion, 188: 

Inheritance, Bibliography on, 98, 
306. 

Injury, plague of leprosy, 154; 
to slave, cause for freedom, 
iy 

Interpretation, of Scriptures by 
Akiba, 29; of Agada, 30; of 
Scriptures by R. Jehuda, 33; 
of Scriptures, poor, in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 106; hermeneu- 
tics, 117, 186; two methods of, 
117, of PH alacha:alevaleedid ss 
123; of Agada, homiletical, 
118, 127; rules of, derived 
from Mosaic law, 122, 122n; 
new method of, 124; Rabbin- 
ical, 127, 134; Talmudic, on 
penal code, 185n; on restric- 
tion of application of infer- 
ence, 135, 137; analogies in, 
142, 148; parallel to Gezera 
Shava in legal, 144, 144n; 
Talmudic Heckesh used in, 
152; of law, modern, 131, 135, 
142, 158, 156; Binyan Ab in 
Rabbinical, 156; in Talmud by 
Binyan Ab, 160; modern, re- 
sembles Rabbinical, on par- 
ticular and general, 164; ac- 
cording to context, 174n, 
175n; on reconciliation of con- 
flicts, 175n, 176; Rabbinical, 
of bastard, 177; of law, mod- 
ern, on analogy from excep- 
tional tradition, 186; Herme- 
neutics, artificial method of, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


186; of Amora how intro- 
duced, 225; Biblical,» 25130im 
debate on Mishna on law of 
Amora, 261; of term Mechil- 
ta, 284; methods of, same in 
Mechilta and Siphre, 285. 

Introducing, a statement, 198. 

Introductory Works and Trea- 
tises, on Talmud, 83; in He- 
brew, 83-84; in modern lan- 
guages, 84; historical, 84; en- 
cyclopedic, 86; reference, 86, 
87; introduction to Siphra of 
Weiss, 19n. 

Investigation, type of question, 
as Fos, lp tes seri Np 

Isaac b. Abdimi, R. Jehuda Ha- 
nasi entrusted Mishna to, 281. 

Isaac b. Joseph, Amude Golah 
OL ia 

Isaac ‘b. Meir, grandsoneeos 
Rashi, Tosaphist, 67. 

Isaac b. Samuel, nephew of 
Rabbenu Tam, Tosaphist, 67. 

Isaac, Joshua, Noam Yerusha- 
layim of, 298. 

Isaac, A. S., on Agada, 296. 

Ise b. Juda, Semi-Tana, 39. 

Ishmael b. Elisha, High Priest, 
Grandfather of R. Ishmael, 
28 


Ishmael b. Elisha, author of Me- 
chilta, 18, 283; school of, 20, 
29, 36, °2838, 284, 280,028 7 seas 
author of Sifre, 20, 283; con- 
troversy with R. Elazar b. 
Azaria, 27; teacher of, 27; 
controversy with Akiba, 28, 
126; logical rules of, 28; thir- 
teen rules of, 29, 124, 127; Me- 
chilta of School of, 29, 284; 
controversy with R. Jose the 
Galilean, 30; taught R. Meir, 
31; method of interpretation 
of, 34; rules in Siphra, 128; 
on capital punishment, 148; 
Heckesh, not a rule of, 152; 
on wave offering on Sabbath, 
154; general and particular 
of, 188; not followed by me- 
jiaeval commentators, 187; 
Mechilta, Siphre of school of, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES ~ 341 


284; Siphra contains com- 
mentary of School of, 285; 
Midrash on Numbers and 
Deuteronomy from school of, 
285; comment. on rules of, 
309; authorities on, 287. 

Ishmael b. Jochanan, R., Tana, 
36. 

Israel, devoted to Talmud, 108; 
Pentateuch of, 108; marriage 
for, 140, 141; bastard prohib- 
ited from congregation of, 
abog 

Israelites, prohibited from mar- 
rying with bastard, 151n; 
working on Sabbath, 174, 
175n. 

Isserles, Darke Moshe of, on 
Turim, 75; annotated Shul- 
chan Aruch, 75. 


J 
Jabne, Academy founded at, 25; 
Gamaliel at, 26; R. Elazar, 
president of Academy at, 27; 
Sanhedrin moved from, 28; 
R. Jose the Galilean at, 380; 
debate of Akiba and Tarphon 


at, 30; Academy reopened by 


Simon b. Gamaliel II, 35. 

Jacob b. Asher, R., abstract of 
decisions, 73; Turim of, Code 
of Law, 74; commentaries on, 
75. 

Jacob B. Korchai, R., teacher of 
Jehuda Hanasi, 289. 

Jacob b. Meir, R., v. Rabbenu 
Tam. 

Jafe, Samuel, R., collection of 
Agada of, 76. 

Janai, Alexander, at time of 
Zugoth, 23. 

Janai, R., Semi-Tana, Amora, 
lived at Sephoris, teacher of 
R. Jochanan b. Napacha, 39, 
a2. 

Jastrow, M., Dictionary of Tal- 
mud, on texts of Talmud, 299. 

Jawitz, on written Mishna, 281. 

Jehuda Hanasi, called Rabbi, 
37; Rabbenu, 289; Patriarch, 
5, 387; codifies Oral Law, 5, 
220, 285; question his author- 


ship of Mishna, 5n; carried 
Oral Law in mind, 6n, 59n; 
in Tosephta, decisions after 
death of,.17; disciples, 17, 37, 
3929h.t-Chiya, R. Chanina b. 
Ghama, 41, R.. Jochanan, A2; 
teachers after, 23; son of Si- 
mon b. Gamaliel II, 36, 37; 
triendly.toek. Nathan, 37; 
excludes Symmachos, 37; 
birth of, 37, 289; teachers of, 
37, 289; Academy of, at Beth 
Shearim, at Sepphoris, at Ti- 
berias, 737; .deathy.41,5. 293; 
anonymous Mishna in work 
of, 191; appoints Chanina b. 
Chama, 290; appoints Gama- 
liel as Patriarch, 290; author- 
ities on, 289. 


Jehuda’ b. lai; Ry; author) of 
Siphravsl 952 sana, 5 lndis- 
ciple of R. Eliezer, of Akiba, 
32, 178; eloquence at Usha, 

_interprets Scriptures, 33; sons 
of, 33; controversy with R. 
Jose, 33; his son, 38; opposed 
to analogy from juxtaposi- 
tion, 178; controversies with 
R. Nehemiah, 284. 


Jehuda b. Isaac, of Paris on To- 
saphoth, 67. 


Jehuda b. Nathan, son-in-law of 
Rashi, supplements Rashi, 66; 
Tosaphist, 67. 


Jeremiah, v. Jirmiah; R., Amo- 
ra, 48; disciple of R. Zera, 
casuistry of, expelled, 48; se- 
riessol, 245*_Zera,. pupil, of, 
292; authorities on, 293. 

Jerusalem, Talmud v. Talmud, 
Palestinian; Talmud, a mis- 
nomer, 58; R. Obadya in, 69; 
Jacob Chagiz in, 70. 

Jerushalmi, v. Palestinian, 
Fragments of Ginzberg, 298, 
299. 


Jerushalmiski, on Babylonian 
Amoraim and _ Palestinian 
Talmud, 290. 

Jew-Haters, attacked in Tal- 


mud, 116. 


342 


Jewish Encyclopedia, for gen- 
eral references. 

Jewish, Jurisdiction abolished, 
54; scholars study Palestin- 
ian Talmud, 62; life guided 
by Rabbinical Law, 71; Theo- 
logical Seminary, MSS. in, 
299; non-, on value of Tal- 
mud, 105-107; scholars on 
value of Talmud, people, soul 
OLF 07 stministry 2007-108. 
109; love, 107; law, 108; “re- 
ligion, source of, 112-113; his- 
torians on Saboraim, 294; 
legend in Agada, 295. 

Jews, during Middle Ages, per- 
secuted, 77; Talmud as litera- 
ture of, 105; duties of, to Gen- 
tiles, 278, 279. 

Jirmiah, R., v. R. Jeremiah. 

Jochanan b. Broka, R., Tana, 
28; authority on Civil Law, 
30; other teachers with, 30; 
authorities on, 287; disciple, 
R. Joshua b. Chanania, 288. 

Jochanan b. Napacha, Amora, 
39, 42, 290; disciple of R. Je- 
huda Hanasi, of R. Oshaya, 
of R. Janai, of Chanina b. 
Chama, 42; ’method Of snl 2* 
lays foundation for Talmud, 
42, 58; befriends Resh Lack- 
ish, 43; disciples of, R. Ela- 
zar, R. Ame, R. Ashi, R. Chi- 
ya b. Abba, Simon b. Abba, 
45; Rabba, 47; Levi b. Sissi, 
290; debates with Resh Lack- 
ish, 261; as author of Siphre, 
290; authorities on, 290. 

Jochanan ». Nuri, Tana, 28; 
discussions with Akiba, 29; 
disciple of Gamaliel II, 29, 30; 
authorities on, 288. 

Jochanan, the Sandelar, Tana, 
O43 disciple Ofek. Akiba, 34° 
recorded opinions of, 34; au- 
thority on, 288. 

Jochanan b. Zaccai, R., Tana, 
24; disciple of R. Hillel, 25; 
founder of Academy, 25; Elie- 
zer b. Hyrcanos, disciple of, 
26; Joshua, disciple of, 26; 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Nahum of 
authorities on, 


contemporary, 
Gamzu, 124; 
286. 

Joel, M., on R. Jehuda b. Ilai, 
288; on R. Jose b. Chalafta, 
288; on R. Simon b. Judai, 
288. 

Joffe, J. A., on Raba, 294. — 

Jonah, R., Amora, 48;eRauay 
teacher of, 48; R. Jeremiah, 
48; Talmud quotes, 48; head 
of Academy at Tiberias, 293. 

Jonathan, Tana, 36; disciple of 
R. Ishmael, 36. 

Jonathan, R. (the elder), Semi- 
Tana, Amora, 39. 

Jordan, S. A., on R. Jochanan 
b. Napacha, 290. 

Jose, R., Amora, 55; at Pumba- 
ditha, Sabora, 55; helped 
complete Babylonian Talmud, 
60 


Jose b. Bun, R., completed Pal- 
estinian Talmud, 58n. 

Jose b. Chalafta, R., Tana, 31; 
born at Sepphoris, disciple of 
Akiba and Tarphon, banished, 
33; controversies of, 33; au- 
thorities on, 288. 

Jose the Galilean, Tana, 28; au- 
thority on sacrifice and tem- 
ple service, 30; R. Eliezer, 
son of, 127; authorities on, 
288. 

Jose b. Joezer, first of Zugoth, 
22s 

Jose b. Jochanan, first of Zu- 
goth, 22. 

Jose bu Juda, R:, “Lanaymage 
friend of Jehuda Hanasi, 38: 
opinions of, 38; authorities on. 
239; 

Jose b. Tadai, argument with 
R. Gamaliel, 140, 141. 

Jose b. Zabda, R., Amora, 48; 
last Rabbinical ’ authority in 
Palestine, 48; regarded as 
compiler ‘of Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 58n; colleague of Jonah, 
48, 293: head of Academy at 
Tiberias, 293; authorities on, 
PAS Be 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Joseph b. Chama, father of 
Raba, 50. 
Joseph b. Chiya, Amora, 48; 


disciple of R. Juda, R. She- 
sheth, 49; succeeded Rab at 
Pumbaditha, 49; called Sinai, 
49; made Targum of Bible, 
49, 293; his pupil, Abaye, 49; 
refutes question, 255n; de- 
bates with Rabba, 261, 262, 
263; opposed by Abaye, 262, 
263; authorities on, 293. 

Joshua, R., Father of R. Huna, 
292. 

Joshua b. Bathyra, R., Tana, 
Dis 

Joshua b. Chanania, R., Tana, 
25; disciple of Jochanan b. 
Zaccai, 26; humiliated by Ga- 
malielell> ©2775 <controversy 
with R. Elazar b. Azaria, 27; 
on mission to Rome, 28; 
taught Akiba, 29; refutes R. 
Eliezer, 129; authorities on, 
287; taught R. Jochanan b. 
Broka, 288. 

Joshuath, Korcha,k;, Tana, 31; 
biography, 35; as son of Aki- 
ba, 35; disciple R. Elazar b. 
Simon, 38; authority on, 288. 

Joshua b. Levi b. Sissi, R., Amo- 
ra, 41; authority, 43; differs 
from R. Jochanan and Resh 
Lakish, 43; expert in Agada, 
43; taught by Bar Kappara, 
289; teachers of, 291. 

Joshua b. Levi, not R. Joshua b. 
Levi b. Sissi, 291. 

Joshua b. Perachia, one of Zu- 
goth, 22. 

Josiah, R., Tana, disciple of R. 
Ishmael, 36. 

Jost, I. M., on compilation of 
Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 85; 
on study of Talmud, 112. 

Juda b. Baba, R., Tana, 28; the 
Chasid, 30; killed by Romans, 
30; renews ordination of R. 
Meir, 31; ordains seven disci- 
ples, 32; ordains R. Jose b. 
Chalafta, 33. 

Juda b. Bathyra, R.,Tana, 25, 27. 

Juda b. Jecheskel, R., Amora, 


343 


45; taught by R. Zeira, disci- 
ple of Rab and Samuel, 46, 
225; founded Academy at 
Pumbaditha, 46, 47; succeeded 
Huna at Sura, 46, 292; taught 
Rabba, 49. 

Juda b. Lakish, R., Semi-Tana, 
39. 

Juda b. Tabai, one of Zugoth, 
2os 

Judah liek: sbatmarch Al au- 
thorities on, 290. 

woudahwelliwet:,batriarch 4), 
290; Amora, 290; on school 
for children, 290; authorities 
on, 290; Hillel II, son of, 293. 

Judah b. Padayah, teacher of 
R. Joshua b. Levi, 291. 

Judaism, conflicts with, in Tal- 
mud, 106; professors of, 109; 
unknown without Talmud, 
109, 110; leaders of, 114; de- 
velopment of, 114; sects of, 
WATE 

Judeo-Christian, worship, op- 
posed by R. Tarphon, 287. 

Judenthum, Das, und seine Ge- 
schichte, v. Geiger. 

Judge, make an inference, 132. 

Judges, qualification for, 178. 

Judgment, an inference, 132. 

Judicial Courts, Bibliography 
on, 97; decisions of, 121. 

Julius III, Pope, destroys Tal- 
mud, 77n. 

Jus talionis, of Sadducees, 134. 

Justice, 267; duty of man to 
man, 272, 273; principles of, 
273; charity related to, 274. 

Juxtaposition, analogy from, 
similar to Heckesh, 177; the- 
ory of, 177, 178; Akiba on, 
177n; Ben Azai upholds, 178; 
R. Jehuda opposed to, 178; 
another method of, 178, 179; 
resha vesefa in, 258. 


K 
Kaempf, J., on Akabia b. Maha- 
lel, 286; on Gamaliel the Eld- 
er, 286. 
Kafri, court at, 44. 
Kahana v. Cahana. 


344 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Kal, defined, 130; v. Minor v. 
Kal ve-Chomer. 


Kal ve-Chomer, inference from 
major and minor, 123; a for- 
tiori, 1380, 251; defined, 130; 
theory of, 1380, 1381; biblical 
prototype for, 131; analogy in 
modern jurisprudence, 131n; 
Talmudic terms used in, 132; 
arrangement of, proposition 
OL, locsediibers, 102, 6100 ,—.0e" 
striction in application of, 
134, 185, 136; refutation of, 
136, 187, 139, 182, 255n; rein- 
statement of refuted, 138, 
139; sophistical, 136, 189, 140, 
141: left, to discretion “or 
teachers, 151. 

Kappara, Bar v. Bar Kappara. 

Karo, Joseph, Shulchan Aruch 
of, 74; code, 75; Kheself 
Mishna, 74; Beth Joseph of, 
on Turim, 75, 299; on Talmud, 
83. 

Karpeles, G., on Talmud, 85. 

Kashya, of Raba or Rabba, 256. 


Kaufmann, D., on Kethuboth, 
282. 

Kera, Biblical passage, 193, 201. 

Kethuboth, Masechta of WNa- 
shim, nature of, 11; transla- 
tions, French of Babylonian 
Talmud, 91; Latin of Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 92; English, 
303; German, 303; authori- 
ties on, 282; v. Special Tal- 
mudic References. 


Khelim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis efor, 2158: 
Graubart on, 282; division of, 
in Tosefta, 283. 

Kherithoth, Masechta of Koda- 
shim, nature of, 12; v. Special 
Talmudic References. 

Khesef Mishne, of R. Joseph 
Karo, 74. 

Khilayim, Masechta of Zeraim, 
9; Biblical basis, 9n; v. Spe- 
cial Mishnaic References. — 


Kiddushim, Masechta of Na- 
shim, 11; nature,of; ligais 
Translations, Latin of Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 92; v. Special 
Mishnaic and Talmudic Ref- 
erences. 

Kimchi, commentator in Mediae- 
val Ages, 187. 

Kindness, 267. 

Kinnim, Masechta of Kodashim, 
nature of, 13; not in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 60; anony- 
mous commentary on, 69; 
Abraham b. David on, 297; 
R. Asher on, 298. 

Kircheim, R., published lesser 
treatises, 64; criticism of 
Syrileio, 298. 

Klal, Uphrat v. General and 
particular, as a general prin- 
ciple, 198; as general’ rule, 
LOA? 

Klein, S., on R. Tarphon, 287. 


Klotz, M., on Ebel Rabbathi, 
64n. 

Klueger, H., on Eduyoth, 282. 

Knowledge, encouraged, 271. 


Kobak, on Hermeneutics, 128; 
commentary on Talmud, 128. 


Kobetz al Yad, of Adler, S., 6n, 
84. 

Kodashim, Seder of Mishna, 11; 
Masechtoth of, 12; none of, in 
Palestinian Talmud, 58; in 
Babylonian Talmud, 60; com- 
mentary on, translated into 
Hebrew, 67; translation of 
Mishna, 302. 

Kohen, E. H., Chrestomathy of, 
301. 

Kohler, on R. Abbahu, 292. 

Kohut, Alexander, Aruch Com- 
pletum of, corrected, 81, 254, 
255n. 

Kol, introducing generalization, 
194, 204. 

Krauss, S., on R. Tarphon; 2575 
on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 289; on 
R. Simon B. Elazar, 289; Lex- 
icon of, 308; Translation of 
Mishna Sanhedrin, 310. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Krochmal, on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 
289; Yerushalayim Habnu- 
Van, 200. 

Krotoschin, edition of Palestin- 
ian Talmud, with commentary, 
70, 80, 300. 

Kultur und Literaturgeschichte 
der Juden v. J. Fuerst. 

Kuthim, a Minor Treatise, 296. 


L 

Labor, on Sabbath, 138, 1389, 
177; forms of, in Talmud, 177; 
as a duty, 272. 

Lamperonte, Isaac, Encyclope- 
dia on Talmud, 86. 

Landau, M., on language of 
Mishna, 15n; edition of Aruch, 
81; on Rabban Gamaliel, 286; 
on Akiba, 287. 

Language of Mishna, 15; bib- 
liography on, 15n, 282; of 
sages, 16; of Maimonides, of 
Turim, 75; of Thora, 125, 126. 

Lapiduth, on Raba, 294; on 
Huna, 292. 

Last Gate v. Baba Bathra. 

Latin, used in Mishna language 
15; words explained in Aruch 
81; translations of Mishna. 
88: of Babylonian Talmud, 
90; of Palestinian Talmud, 
92; of Maccoth, 302. 

Lauterbach, on Mechilta, 284, 
285; on R. Simon b. Gamaliei, 
288; on Rabba bar Chana, 
293; on Rabba bar Huna, 293; 
on Rafram bar Papa, Rafram 
II, 294; on Talmud, 301. 

Law, v. Oral, Written, v. Hala- 
cha, general, bibliography on, 
96-99, 306, 314-316; moral, in 
Talmud, 111; interpretation 
of, 118; determination of, 118, 
119: Oral harmonized with 
written, 121, 186; Roman, 
121n; Aramaic for Biblical, 
122; biblical, not generally 
Mosaic, 122, 122n; support 
for, 123; law from Moses on 
Sinai, 123; restrictive or per- 
missive, 185; no minor or ma- 


345 


jor in penal law, modern in- 
terpretation of, analogous in 
Talmudpeeto soos ali hee, 
156; basis for new, 186; re- 
stricting time of slavery, 144; 
application of Gezera Shava 
gel. Conighhe WPM Vs, sy Mate 
Roman, affects Jewish, 149n; 
traditional, derived by Heck- 
esh, 155; on duties of women, 
on courts, 153; special and 
general, 156; Mosaic, as gen- 
eral, 162; Rabbinical, on pro- 
hibited marriages, 165n; tra- 
ditional, on influence of 
judges, 178; Mosaic, on 
judges, 179; modern, on anal- 
ogy from exceptional, 180n; 
unstated reason of, 1938; con- 
cerning act to be done, 197; 
Biblical source of, 200, 201; 
reason of, 201, 202, 225, 244; 
particular of, 202; contrary to 
preceding, 214; unclean prin- 
ciple of, 226; difference con- 
cerning reason of, 232; source 
of, 244; debated principle of, 
261; discussed in Bible, 267; 
divine, to be studied, 271; all 
pervading principle of, 279; 
ceremonial, 278; decisions 
fixed by Saboraim, 295; terms 
determine rules of, 310; terms 
with ritual.o10; 

Laws, v. Oral, and Written; v. 
Halacha, v. Rabbinical, tradi- 
tional, 56; obsolete, 72; com- 
mendatory, 74; prohibitory, 
74; liturgical, ritual, mar- 
riage, civil of R. Jacob, 74; 
open to interpretation, 104. 

Lazarus, on Mar Ukba, 291. 

Learning, as part of Kal ve- 
Chomer, 132. 

Lebrecht, on written Mishna, 
6n; on Talmud, 78. 

Lechem Mishne, of R. Abraham 
de Boton, 74. 

Lederer, Ph. Chrestomathy, 82. 

Legal, v. Hermeneutics v. inter- 
pretation, 118, 123; interpre- 
tation parallel to Gezerah 


346 


Shava, 144, 144n; principle of 
generalization, 156; responsi- 
bility in case of loss, 262; dis- 
cussions, ethics in, 267. 

Legal and Political Hermeneu- 
tics v. Lieber. 


Legends, v. Agada; in Agada, 


Zou. 
Lehman, M., published commen- 
tary of Solomon Syrileio, 71. 
Lemberg, R. Meir Lublin of, 68; 
edition of R. Samuel Jafe, 76. 
Leon, Sir, v. R. Jehuda b. Isaac. 


Leper, brings’ trespass-offer- 
mee 173: 
Leprosy v. Negaim, investi- 
gated, 154. 


Lerner, on origin of Mishna, 
2aLs 

Leszynski, R., 
Hanasi, 289. 

Levi, father 
Levi, 291. ° 

Levi b. Sissi, R., disciple of Je- 
huda Hanasi, 38; emigrates 
to Babylonia, 42; teacher of 
Mar Samuel, 44; authorities 
on, 290; father of R. Joshua 
b. Levi, 291. 

Levi b. Sissi, disciple of R. Joch- 
anan, 290; friend of R. Abba 
b. Cahana, 290. 

Levias, Caspar, grammar of, 82. 

Levirate, marriage, 10. 

Leviticus, v. Special Biblical 
References, basis for Mid- 
rashim, 283; for Siphre, for 
Siphra, 284. 

Levy, Isaac, German translation 
of Sabbath, 90. 

Levy, J. Neuhebraisches 
Chald. Worterbuch of, 81. 

Lewin, L., on R. Simon b. Jochai, 
288. 

Lewy, on changes in Mishna, 
281; on Mechilta of R. Simon 
b. Jochai, 284. 

Lexicon Talmudicum, of Johann 
Buxtorf, 81; on value of Tal- 

_mud, 108. 

Lexicons, for study of Talmud, 
81-82, 300. 


on R. Jehuda 
Olin OSHilAmeD: 


und 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Leyden, codices of Talmud at, 
ils ONLS oura Gaal oe 

Lieber, Francis, Legal and Po- 
litical Hermeneutics of, 121n; 
on traditional law, 144; on 
analogy from exceptional, 
180n. 

Life, conduct of, 64. 

Lifschutz, Israel, R., commen- 
tary of, 297: 

Limitation, extension and, of 
Nahum, 1242°125,79126-sein 
Mishna, 195; of a provision, 
208; of point of difference, 
LTE 

Limiting, words and_ phrases, 
195, 

Linguistics, Bibliography on, 
JIU TeoUS so kbs 

Lipscheutz, O., Chrestomathy 
of, 300. 

Lists, of terms and phrases in 
Mishna, 191-197, 198-199. 
Liturgical Laws, Tur Orach 

Chayim, 74. 

Liturgical rules v. Berachoth. 

Lives, of Saints, 105. 

Loeb, Elijah b. Jehudah, com- 
mentary on Zeraim, Baba 
Kamma, etc., 298. 

Loew, Leopold, on compilation 
of Mishna, 6n; ‘“Lebensalter” 
of, on Rabba of Thospia, 54n. 

Loewenmayer, on R. Jochanan 
b. Napacha, 290. 

Lord, as father, 131. 

Loss, legal responsibility in, 262, 
202% 

Love, of God, 271; missing in 
ancient philosophers, 274. 
Lowe, W. H., text of Mishna, 

{1 ePAls 

Lublin, Talmud edition of, 79. 

Lunz, edited Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 298; fragments found in 
Vatican by, 299. 

Luria, Solomon, commentary of, 


Luzzatto, on compilation of 
Mishna, 6n; grammar of, 82. 
Lydda, school of, 26, 287; R. 
Tarphon, of, 28; school at, re- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 347 


opened, 42, 287; R. Simlai at, 
43. 


M 

Maaseh, report cited as proof, 
194, 214. 

Maaseroth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 9; Latin 
translation of Palestinian 
Talmud, 92; v. Special Mish- 
naic References. 

Maaser Sheni, Masechta of Ze- 
raim, Biblical basis for, 9; 
Latin translation of Palestin- 
ian Talmud. 

Maccabean Wars, time of Zu- 
goth during, 22. 

Maccabees, Pentateuch at time 
oy ae AO 

Maccoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
Biblical basis for, 11; Tosa- 
photh of R. Perez on, 296; 
last perek of, missing, 297; 
translations, 91, 302; v. Spe- 
cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
References. 

Machlokat, division of opinion, 
191, 192; limiting the point of 
difference, 217. 

Maschsirim, Masechta of Teha- 
roth, nature of, Biblical basis 
fore 4: 

Magen Abraham, on Orach Cha- 
yim, of R. Abraham Gum- 
biner, 75. 

Maggid Mishne, of Don Vidal di 
Tolosa, on Maimonides, 74. 
Magic, in Babylonian Talmud, 

106. 

Mah Mazinu, v. as-we-find anal- 
ogy. 

Maimonides, Moses, on writing 
down of Mishna, 6n; on order 
of Masechtoth, 8n; introduc- 
tion to Seder Zeraim, 15; com- 
mentary on Mishna, 58, 68, 
BOTee Mim. 01,7 68,569 sa al- 
mudical code of, 69; Mishne 
Torah of, 73; commentary on, 
74, 75; compared with Turim, 
75; in editions of Mishna, 78; 
in Babylonian Talmud, 78; on 
Talmud, 83; on Mosaic Law, 


122n; criticized by Nachman- 
ides, 122n; on untraceable 
traditions, 123; on Jew and 
Gentile, 280n; Eight Chapters 
of, 297; commentary of Pe- 
sachim, 297. 

Major, v. Kal ve-Chomer; in- 
ference from, 123, 130. 


Majority, decision, 121, 122; 
conflict between individual 
and, 192. 


Malachi b. Jacob, on Talmud, 
86. 

Malter, on value of Tosephta, 
283. 

Mamorstein, on R. Judah II, 
290, 

Mamzer v. Bastard. 

Man, killed by brute, 72; as bas- 
tard, 181; as moral being, 
269; dignity of, 269; free-will 
of, 270; duties of, 270; differ 
from women, 153; accounta- 

Dilly Ol, t0,G0d, 270.2712 re- 
lation to fellow-men, 272; and 
Wilese210,) 210,007 1.218 tO 
all men, 279; salvation of, 
280. 

Mandelstamm, on R. Joshua b. 
Chanania, 287. 

Mann, J., on R. Nachman b. 
Jacob, 293. 

Manna, gathered on Saturday, 
175; Rashi on, 175n. 

Mantua, Mishna of, 78. 

Manuscripts, of the Talmud, 77; 
lost and destroyed, 77, 77n; 
of Palestinian Talmud, 78; of 
Mishna, 78; basis for recon- 
structed Midrashic, 284; of 
separate treatises of Talmud, 
299. . 

Mar, title for Babylonian teach- 
er, 41. 

Mar b. R. Ashe, Amora, 53; 
president at Sura, 53; author- 
ities on, 294. 

Marginal glosses, 222. 

Margolioth, Moses R., commen- 
tary on Jerushalmi, 71. 

Margolis, Max L., edited Megil- 
la, 77n; grammar of, 300. 


348 


Mar Jemar (Maremar), Amora, 
538; succeeded R. Ashe, 53; 
continued work on Talmud, 
53. 

Marriage, Levirate, 10; deeds, 
11; bibliography on, 98, 3807, 
315; when lawful, 140; con- 
tracted by money, 149; by 
contract, 155; prohibited, 165; 
how contracted, 194; age for, 
275; encouraged, 277, 278. _ 

Marriage Deeds v. Kethuboth. 

Marriage Laws, Tur Eben Ha- 
Ezer of R. Jacob, 74; in Tal- 
mud, 110. 

Mar Samuel, disciple of R. Je- 
huda Hanasi, 38; Amora, 41; 
teachers of, 44; succeeded R. 
Shela, 44; principles of, 44; 
friend of Rab, 44; defeated 
Mar Ukba, 44; compiler of 
Baraithoth, 44n; death of, 45; 
Rab Juda, disciple of, 46, 225; 
Rab Shesheth, 46; Rab Nach- 
man, 47; investigating ques- 
tions of, 2388; differs from 
Rab, 262. 

Marx, on written Mishna, 281; 
on arrangement of Tosephta, 
283; on Maimonides, 297; on 
Strack, 301. 

Mar Zutra, Amora, 51; succeed- 
ed Cahana, 52; succeeded by 
R. Acha b. Raba, 52. 

Mar Zutra b. Mare v. Mar 
Zutra, Exilarch, 52. 

Masechta v. Mesichta; division 
of Seder, 7; derivation of, 7n; 
quoting a Mishna from anoth- 
er, 220; oldest in Mishna, 282; 
particulars of each, 282; Me- 
chilta for plural of, 284. 

Masechtoth v. Divisions; divi- 
sions of Seder, 7, 283; differ- 
ences as to order of, 8; rea- 
sons for order of, 8n; list of, 
9-14; in each Seder, 9-14; or- 
der of, 9-14, 281; in Tosephta, 
17; in Palestinian Talmud, 
58; reasons for loss of, 59; in 
Babylonian Talmud, 60; addi- 
tional dealing with precepts, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


63; published by Raphael 
Kirchheim, 64; with no Rashi, 
65; missing Babylonian Ge- 
mara, 66; codices of, 77; been 
translated, 90. 

Masora, text by tradition, 185; 
Talmud on, 185, 186; Mikra 
prevails over, 186; studied by 
Nachman b. Jacob, 292. 

Masoretic rules, 63. 

Masseket Semahot, on execution 
of Simon b. Gamaliel, 286. 

Massoreth Ha-Shas, parellel 
passages on Talmud, 76; im- 
creased by Isaiah Berlin, 76. 

Mash, Israel on Talmud, 86. 

Master, of slave paid damages, 
ioe 

Mater lectionis, 122. 

Mathematics, Bibliography on, 
98. 

Mathia b. Charash, R., disciple 
of R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos, 30. 

Mathnitha Baraitha v. Ba- 
raitha. 

Matza v. unleavened bread. 

Maxims, value of, 308; in Tal- 
mud, 267n; of Rabbis, 269; on 
austerity, 277, 278; of ethical 
teachings, 279. 

Mayence, scholars of, comment 
on Talmud, 296. 

Measurements, of Temple, v. 
Middoth. 

Meat, and milk, 137. 

Meat-offerings v. Menachoth. 

Mebo-Ha-Jerushalmi, of Z. 
Frankel, on commentary to 
Palestinian Talmud, 71, 84. 

Mebo-Ha-Mishna, of Jacob 
Brill, v. Jacob Brill. 

Mechilata, correct for Mechilta, 
285. 

Mechilta, akin to Mishna, 17; 
commentary, 18; meaning of 
term, 18, 284, 285; Biblical 
material used in, 18; legal and 
homiletical character of, 18; 
sections of, 18; passages 
quoted in Talmud, authorship 
of, 18; brought from Pales- 
tine to Babylon, 18; Baraitha 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


inet (e280 editions: OL,.100; 
R. Ishmael, author of, 29, 
284; R. Simon b. Jochai, 284; 
on Deuteronomy, 284; D. 
Hoffmann on, 284; Lauter- 
bach’s rearrangement of, 284; 
Sifra contains passages of, 
285; mentions Ishmael and 
school, 287; references to, 119, 
134 13b,.l55n.4130,0L47,,161n, 
166,113, 220,2222. 


Mechuza, Rab Shesheth at, 47; 
academy at, 50; chief seat of 
learning, 50. 

Medicine, Bibliography on, 100, 
308, 317; French translations 
of references to, 91; in Tal- 
mud, 103. 

Megilla, Masechta of Moed, na- 
ture of, 10; reading of Scrip- 
ablegeicte” SWS SW Gere Kenia e rere. i het 
English translation of, 303; 
German translation, 90, 303; 
Latin, 92; v. Special Mishnaic 
and Talmudic References. 

Meila, Masechta of Kodashim, 
Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
mentary on, 66n; Tosaphoth 
of R. Perez on, 296; v. Spe- 
cial Talmudic References. 


Meir of Rothenburg, R., special 
Tosaphoth of, 297; commen- 
tarveot, 297+) hiss disciples, 
299: 

Meir, R., systematizes Oral Law, 
5; in Tosephta, 17; arranges 
Oral Law after Akiba, 29, 32; 
Tana, 31; at Academy of Aki- 
ba, at school of Ishmael, 31; 
Chacham, 32, 35; conflict with 
Simon b. Gamaliel II, 32, 37; 
Agadist, 32; controversy with 
Rew OSe,. 60° his, disciple, R- 
Simon b. Elazar, 38; on courts 
open in day, 154; authorities 
on, 288; origin and death of, 
288. 


Meir Ha-Cohen, R., author of 
Hagahot Maimuniyoth, 74, 
299; disciple of R. Meir of 
Rothenburg, 299. 


349 


Meir Lublin, R., commentary of 
on Talmud, 68. 

Meir b. Samuel, R., son-in-law 
of Rashi, Tosaphist, 67. — 
Melamed, J. E., on Abba Areca, 

291. 

Memra, definition of, phrases 
of, 224; in Talmud, 224-226; 
treatment of, 227; questioning 
authenticity of, 227; in col- 
lision with Mishna or Barai- 
tha, 228; superfluous, corrob- 
orated by Baraitha, 229; cor- 
recting the, 230; with a dif- 
ference of opinion, 231-236. 

Menachoth, Masechta of Koda- 
shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
Tosaphoth of R. Samson on, 
296; Latin translation of 
Babylonian Talmud, 90; v. 
Special Talmudic References. 

Mendelsohn, Moses; his teacher 
R. David Fraenkel, 70. 

Mendelsohn, S., on differences 
between Hillel and Shammai, 
286; on Akabia b. Mahalel, 
286; on R. Eliezer b. Hyr- 
kanos, 287; on R. Jochanan b. 
Napacha, 290. 

Mesichta v. Masechta. 

Menstrous, the, v. Nidda. 

Mental tournaments, of Talmuc 
141. 

“Merely,” use of, 125. 

Meziatha, middle case, 192. 

Mezuza, a minor Treatise, 296. 

Micah, teacher of ethics, 267; v. 
Special Biblical References, 
2078 

Middle, case at, 192. 

Middle Ages, Jews during, 109; 
teachers of, 111; Biblical 
Commentators of, 187. 

Middle Gate v. Baba Metzia. 

Middoth, Masechta of Kodashim, 
nature of, 13; not in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 60; R. She- 
maya comments on, 69; not in 
Mishna® of \Tanaim; 2813" 1. 
Hildesheimer on, 282; R. Ash- 
er on, 298; v. Special Mish- 
naic references. 


350 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Midrash, traditional interpreta- 
tion, 18° Utwomkindsmol, 113° 
Halachasyisag ls 0 120° 
Agada, 18, 118, 119, 126; leg- 
end of R. Meir in, 32; lexicon 
for, 80; result of Derash, use 
of Gezera Shava, in, 149n; 
Rabba quoted, 269n, 270n, 
272n; Tanaitic, based on Pen- 
tateuch, 283, 284; on Deuter- 
onomy of School of Ishmael, 
285; Ha-Gadol in Genizah, 
285. 

Midrashim, Biblical basis for, 
284; Baraitha in, 286; R. Ish- 
mael and school mentioned in, 
287. 

Mielziner, on Gezera_ Shava, 
145n; on Marriage, 165n. 

Migdal Oz, of Shem Tob Ibn 
Gaon, 74. 

Mikra, reading of text, 185; 
Talmud on, 185, 186; preva- 
lence over Masora, 186. 

Mikvaoth, Masechta to Teha- 
roth, nature of, 138; commen- 
tary of R. Meir of Rothenburg 
OnpezZor. 

Mildness, Rabbis on, 274. 

Mill, man deprived of, 156. 

Milton, John, Paradise Lost of, 
105. 

Ministry, Jewish, 108, 109. 

Minor Feast v. Moed Katon. 

Minor, v. Kal ve-Chomer; infer- 
ence from major and, 123, 
130: 

Minors, Bibliography on, 307. 

Minor Treatises, of Talmud, 64, 
296. 

Miriam, incident of, example of 
Kal-ve-Chomer, 131, 135. 

Miscellaneous Agada v. Agada. 

Mishna, a section of Perek, 7; 
Gemara attached to,’62. 

Mishna (general) as part of 
Talmudys3> onigingot 4231 
codification of oral, 4; of Je- 
huda Hanasi, 5, 29, 220, 281, 
285; of Akiba and Meir, 5; 
revised by disciples of Je- 
da, 6; explanation of term, 6; 


authorship of Jehuda Hanasi 
questioned, 6n; written or not, 
6n, 281; additions to, 6n; di- 
visions of, 7, 281, 283; order of 
Masechtoth of, 8, 8n; order of 
succession in, 9-14; language 
of, 15, 15n; style of expres- 
sion in, 16; kindred works, 
17; contrasted with Baraitha, 
21, 285; authorities of, 22; 
teacher of, 28; laws on courts 
of Priests in, 25; opinions of 
Simon b. Gamaliel in, 25; 
quotes R. Jehuda Hanasi, 32; 
records R. Elazar, 34; quotes 
R. Jochanan the Sandelar, 34; 
collection by R. Nechemia, 35; 
opinions of R. Joshua Korcha 
in, 35; opinions of Simon b. 
Gamaliel II in, 36; opinions 
of Symmachos in, 37; opinion 
of R. Jose b. Juda in, 38; Ta- 
naim not mentioned in, 39; 
expounders of, 40; expound- 
ed at Academies, 40; princi- 
ples accepted in, 40; expound- 
ed by R. Jochanan, 42; inter- 
preted by Resh Lakish, 43; 
Rabba on, 49; interpreted by 
Abaye, 50; R. Ashe compiler 
of material in, 51; discussions 
of Amoraim on, 56; Maimon- 
ides’s commentary on, 58; 
Masechtoth of, in Palestinian 
Talmud, 58, 78; New Hebrew 
in, 61; additional Masechtoth 
in form of, 63; commentaries 
to, 65, 68, 69, 70, 299; MSS. 
of, 78; printed editions of, 78; 
translations of, 88, 302-303; 
Amoraim found support for 
authorities in, 148; resembles 
Roman Law, 149n; entrusted 
by R. Jehuda to Roba, 281; 
systems of others, 281; of Bar 
Kappara, R. Hiyya, 281; trea- 
tises of Tosephta not identical 
with, 282, 283; arrangement 
of, 283; of R. Meir, followed 
by Tosephta, 283; teachers of, 
286; commentaries printed in, 
298; text of Lowe supported 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 351 


by Palestinian Talmud, 299; 
identical in Babylonian and 
Palestinian, 299; translation 
of, 302; Tamid, oldest treatise 
Deol oo 


Mishna (treatment of), struc- 
ture of, 191; anonymous, un- 
disputed, 191; treatment of 
anonymous, 198; reports con- 
flict of opinion, 191; contain- 
ing two or more cases, 192; 
general rule in, 194; general- 
ization in, 194; stated number 
of cases in, 195; limitation in, 
195; no limitation extended 
in, 196; unexpected case, 196; 
self-evident case in, 196; act 
to be done or done in, 197; di- 
rect permission in, 197; ‘“‘ac- 
ceptable and valid cases in, 
197; explained and discussed 
in Gemara, 198; explaining 
words and phrases of, 198; 
meaning of a whole statement 
in, 199; seemingly different or 
superfluous statement in, 199; 
investigating particular cir- 
cumstances of a case in, 200; 
source of law investigated in, 
200; reasons for anonymous, 
201; general basis of partic- 
ulars of a law in, 202; au- 
thorship of anonymous, 203; 
comprehensive and_ limiting 
terms in, 203-204; reference 
to certain statement in, 204; 
qualifying a provision of, 204; 
Miklal in, 206, 207; incongru- 
ity in, 207; tautology in, 207; 
order objected to in, 208; 
mode of expression in, ob- 
jected to, 208; objected to a 
certain limitation of provi- 
sion in, 208; unnecessary pro- 
vision of, in, 209; unnecessary 
repetition in, 210; analogous 
cases in, cases in a climax in, 
212; omission of cases in, 212; 
decision not in accordance 
with established principle in, 
213; inconsistency of princi- 
ple in, 218, 214; law contrary 


to preceding law in, 214; con- 
flict of authoritative passages 
in, 214, 215; difference of 
opinions, 216; inconsistency of 
opinions in, 218; Gemara 
quoting the, 220; terms used 
in referring to, 220-223; quo- 
tations from in Gemara; con- 
trary to teaching of, 224; Ge- 
mara treats of proper reading 
of passage in, of meaning of 
an expression in, of unclear 
principle of law in, of formal 
decision in, of case not pro- 
vided for in, 226; Memra in 
collision with, 227, 228; cor- 
roborates Memra, 229; Memra 
discusses correct reading of, 
231; Memra treats of differ- 
ent explanation of terms in, 
231; referred to in support 
Of an, opinion, 72330304 so dit 
ference between Tanaim in, 
204 contradiction” of; +244; 
Supports argument, 248; con- 

flict with decision of, 254; par- 
allellism in, 258; juxtaposi- 
tion in, 258; debated provision 
of, 261; passage used in de- 
bate, 262. 

Mishnayoth, Mishna edition, 8; 
collected by R. Oshaya, 289; 
“en ben” at beginning of, 310. 

Mishne L’Melech of Jehuda Ro- 
sanes, on Maimonides, 74. 

Mishne Torah of Maimonides, 
73; annotations and commen- 

wtarysto, (4: 

Mixtures v. Khilayim; prohibi- 
tion of, 165. 

Mnemonical signs, 60n; explain- 
ed, 86. 

Die Mnemotechonich des Tal- 
muds, of Jacob Brill, 60n. 

Moabite, as bastard, 150, 151, 
181; basis of Gezera Shava, 
Lot: 

Modern, interpretation of law, 
analogies, to major and mi- 
nor, 181, 1385; to Gezera Sha- 
va, 142; to Heckesh, 153; to 
Binyan Ab, 156; Toullier on, 


352 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


157n; resembles Rabbinical, 
on General and Particular, 
164, 165, 166n; on explana- 
tion from context, 174n; on 
reconciliation of conflicts, 
175n; on exceptional, 180n. 

Modern Languages, works in, 
on Talmud, 84-85, 301; Bib- 
liography on, 312. 

Modes, of treating an anony- 
mous Mishna, 198; polite, of 
objection, 260; of expression, 
succinct and elliptical in Tal- 
mud, 264. 

Modification, of the rules of 
General and Particular, 169- 
173; of a statement, 204. 

Moed, Seder of Mishna, 7; num- 
ber of Masechtoth in, 10; in 
Palestinian’ Talmud, 58; in 
Babylonian Talmud, 60; Mai- 
monides on, 68; R. David 
Fraenkel on, 70; in Ahabat 
Zion v’ Jerushalaim, 298; 
translation of Mishna, 302. 

Moed Katon, Masechta of Moed, 
nature ,01,7 10 seve OL aed 1 
Translation, Latin of Pales- 
tinian Talmud, English of 
Babylonian, 303; v. Special 
Talmudic References. 

Monasticism, 
Rabbis, 277. 

Montgomery, on Kuthim, 296. 

Moral, law in Talmud, 111; 
teachings in Agada, 118; du- 
ties in Talmud, 268; ideas 
crystallized by Rabbis, 269; 
being, man as, 269; teaching 
with regard to Jew and Gen- 
tile, 279. 

Morality, principles of, 267; 
with knowledge, 271; exces- 
sive ideas of, 277; aim of re- 
ligion, 280. 

Mortality, in Talmud, 112. 

Mosaic Law, as Biblical, 122n; 
special legislation in, 157; 
every provision general of, 
162; on unfitness of Judges, 
lis) 

Mordecai b. Hillel, R., notes of, 


discouraged by ) 


accompanying Rif, 73; code 
of, 298; compendium of, 298; 
disciple of R. Meir Ha-Cohen, 


BID, 
Mosaisches Recht, of Saal- 
schuetz, on Gezera Shava, 
145n) 


Moses, v. Mosaic Law, second 
Book of, interpreted, 18; con- 
clusion from law of, 122; laws 
Trommel Ze. 

Moses of Brisk, R., Chelkath 
Mechkokeh, on Eben Ha- 
Ezer, 75. 

Moses of Coucy, R., 67, 74; au- 
thor of Tosaphoth, 67; Smag 
of, 67; Great Law Book of, 74. 

Motives, for duty, 271. 

Mourning, rules for, 63. 

Mueller, J., on Sopherim, 63n. 

Munich, codices of Talmud at, 
77: MS. of Babyloniamaty 77 
299; critical editions at, 80. 

Mussaphia,, Benjamin, additions 
of, to Aruch, 81. 

Mystic, speculation, of Ben Zo- 
ma, 288. 

Mystical Agada v. Agada. 


N 


Nachman b. Isaac, R., Amora, 
48; teacher of Raba, 50; pu- 
pil of R. Nachman b. Jacob, 
Resh Calla, 50, at Pumba- 
ditha, succeeded by R. Cha- 
ma, 51; debates R. Chisda, 
261; authorities on, 294. 

Nachman (b. Jacob), R., Amo- 
ra, 45, 292; disciple of Mar- 
Samuel, 47; chief justice at 
Nahardea, 47; taught s@hs 
Nachman, 50; debates with 
R. Huna, R. Shesheth, Raba, 
261; authorities on, 292; 293% 
R. Abba b. Abuha, father-in- 
law of, 292; studied Masora, 
292. 

Nachmani v. Abaye. 

Nachmanides, criticizes 
monides, 122n. f 

Nachum (Nahum), R., of Gim- 
zo, Tana, 27; teacher of Aki- 


Mai- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 353 


ba, 27; rules of interpretation 
of, 124, 125; followed by Aki- 
Dat 2b, 

Nachum, the Mede, Tana, 25. 

Nahardea, Academy at, Mishna 
expounded at, 40; R. Simlai 
at, 48; Mar Samuel at 44; 
exilarch at, 44; R. Shesheth 
at, 46; R. Nachman, chief jus- 
tice at, 47; R. Chama at, 51; 
Amemar at, 51; Rab Dime of, 
52; passes out of existence, 
52° Rab, R. Asst’ at, 291. 

Names, of Masechtoth, 281, 282. 

Naples, edition of Mishna, at, 
Tie 

Narbonne, R. Meir Ha-Cohen 
Ori 4. 

Nashim, Seder of Mishna, 17; 
Masechtoth of, 10; in Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 5S walleot, 
Babylonian Talmud, 60; ae 
mentary of Maimonides on, 
67; commentary of R. David 
Fraenkel on, Palestinian, 70; 
translated, 382. 

Nasi, of Sanhedrin, 22; title for, 
23; Gamaliel the Elder, 24. 
Nathan (the Babylonian), R., 
Tana, 36; R. Simon b. Gama- 
liel appoints him Ab Beth 
Din, 35, 37; retired and rein- 
stated, 37; R. Jehuda speaks 
of, 37; author of Aboth de R. 
Nathan, 37, 63; on kindling 
fire on Sabbath, 172n; emi- 
grated to Palestine, 289; au- 

thorities on, 289. 

Nathan b. Jechiel, R., Aruch of, 

Lexicon for Talmud, 81, 300. 


Nations, of the world, Baby- 
lonians for, 79n; in Babylon- 
ian Talmud, 106. 

Natural History and Science, 
Bibliography on, 100, 308, 309. 

Nature, in Talmud, 112. 

Nazarite, The, v. Nazir. 


Nazir, Masechta of Nashim, 
Biblical basis for, 11; com- 
mentary on, 66n; Tosaphoth 


of R. Perez on, 296; v. Spe- 


cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
References. 

Nechemia, R., Tana, 31; disci- 
ple of R. Akiba, 35; authority 
on sacrificial law, 35; contro- 
versy with Jehuda b. Ilai, 35, 
288. 

Nechunia b. Hakana, R., 27; 
teacher of R. Ishmael, 24; re- 
tained rules of Hillel, 125. 

Nedarim, Masechta of Nashim, 
nature of, Biblical basis for, 
11; commentaries on, 66; 
commentary on, not Rashi’s, 
296;. Tosaphoth. of Rx .Perez 
on, 296; v. Special Talmudic 
References. 

Negaim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis for, 11; R. Meir 
of Rothenburg, on, 297. 

Negligence, loss through, 262. 

Nehemia, R., in Tosephta, 17. 

Nehemiah, verse from, on mean- 
ing of term “to buy,’ 149n; 
v. Biblical References. 

Neighbor, love of, 279. 

Neubauer, Geographie du Tal- 
mud, on Rabba of Thospia, 
54n. 

Neumark, on names and order 
of Masechtoth, 282. 

New Year v. Rosh Hashana. 

ING Wale hiOLl ieee Vio. A yeahs tve 
Samuel Adler of, 110. 

Nezikin, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
number of Masechtoth of, 11; 
in Palestinian Talmud, 58; in 
Babylonian, 60; commentary 
of Maimonides on, 69; R. Da- 
vid Fraenkel on, 70; Mishna, 
translated, 302. 

Nidda, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis for, 18; in Pal- 
estinian Talmud, 58; in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 60; v. Special 
Talmudic References. 

Nisibis, school at, 27; R. Elazar 
at, 34. 

Nissim, Rabbenu, on written 
Mishna, 6n; commentary of, 
on Nedarim, 66; accompanies 
Tifeecoe 


354 
Nitai of Arbela, one of Zugoth, 
22 


Noam Yerushalayim, of Joshua 
Isaac, 298. 

Non-Israelite, Idolater for, 79n. 

Noun, extension in use of, 126, 
126n. 

Novellae, of R. Meir Lublin, 68; 
of R. Samuel Edels on Tal- 
mud, 68. 

Number, of cases stated, 195. 

Numbers, a basis for Mid- 
rashim, 20, 283; for Siphre of 
school of R. Ishmael, 284, 285; 
for Siphre Zuta of school of 
R. Akiba, 284, 285; v. Special 
Biblical References. 

Nutt, on Kuthim, 296. 

O 


Obadya, v. Bartinoro, R., Berti- 
noro, commentary on Mishna, 
69; method of, 78; in edition 
of Mantua, 78; commentary 
on Khilayim, 165n. 

Oaths v. Shebuoth. 

Obedience, of man to God, 271. 

Objection, against Memra, 228- 
230; how removed, 231; type 
of question, 237; question of, 
239-240; special kinds of, 240, 
241, 242; set forth as dilem- 
ma, 242, 243; answer to weak, 
243; to a proposition, 258; 
mild, 260; to Mishna removed, 
263. 

Ohaloth, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
mentary of R. Meir of Rothen- 
burg on, 297. 

Omer, offering of, 176. 

Opinions, ethical in Talmud, 
268. 

Omission, of a distinction, 208; 
of a case, 212; of names in 
discussion, 264. 

Opinions, anonymous, of Jehu- 
da Hanasi, 5; on Talmud, 103- 
ibAbeconilictio1gi 01-922 GRO 
ferences of, 192; of Hillel and 
Shammai, 192; different, 
without reason, 193; dissent- 
ing, 204, 216; difference of, 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


216; identical, 216; inconsist- 
ency of, 218; opposite, 219, 
229; of Tanaim, Amoraim, 
225; of Amoraim in agree- 
ment, 225; of Tanaim oppo- 
site, 226; differing in Memra, 
231-236; principle underly- 
ing difference of, 282; con- 
sistency of, 2382; discussion 
of difference of, 233; differing 
between Amoraim, 234; au- 
thorship of, two opposite, 235; 
two or more alternatives of, 
242; accepted, 249; confirm- 
ed, 255; in debate, 261; of R. 
Joseph accepted, 263; in Mish- 
na altered, 281. 

Oppenheim, Ch., on R. Elezer 
b. Hyrkanos, 287; on R. Jose 
the Galilean, 288. 

Oppenheimer, Joachim on Tal- 
mud, 84. ; 

“Or,” extension in use of, 126. 

Orach Chayim Tur, of R. Jacob, 
Code, 74; commentary on, 75. 

Oral Law v. Mishna, composi- 
tion of, 4, 120; transmitted, 
4; first attempt to arrange, 
4; R. Akiba subdivides, R. 
Meir continues to divide, 5; 
R. Jehuda Hanasi codifies, 5, 
6n; not to be written down, 
120; authority of, 120; har- 
monized with writers, 121, 
186. 

Oral, teaching, defined as Mish- 
na, 7; report, how reported, 
22: 

Order v. Seder; division of 
Mishna, 7; in Mishna, object- 
ed to, 207; of laws in Toseph- 
ta, 283. 

Orders v. Sedarim. 

Ordinances of Gamaliel the Eld- 
er, 24. 

Origin, of the Mishna, views on, 
281; of Tosephta, 17, 288. 
Orla, Masechta of Zeraim, Bib- 
lical basis for, 9; Latin trans- 
lation of Palestinian Talmud, | 
92; omitted from Tosephta, 

283. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 855 


Oshaya, R., disciple of R. Jehu- 
da Hanasi, 39; in Tosephta, 
17; compiler of Tosephta, 39; 
R. Abba Areca, nephew of, 
39; R. Jochanan, disciple of, 
42; disciple of Bar Kappara, 
289; Mishnayoth of, 289. 

Oxford, Bodleian Library at, 
68; codices of Talmud at, 77; 
MSS. of Mishna at, 78; MSS. 
of Palestinian Talmud at, 78, 
299. 

E 


Padua, A. M., on Levi b. Sissi, 
290. 

Pairs v. Zugoth. 

Palestine, origin of Mechilta in, 
19; origin of Siphra in, 19; 
language of, 37, 61; Acade- 
mies at, 40; chief Amora of, 
42> R. Zera of, 46; Ulla of, 
47; last Rabbinical authorities 


in, 48; Talmudists from, 104; | 


schools of Babylon differ from 
schools of, 198, 199; authori- 
ties@O0, arlLO. Support, 12ba,, K. 
Nathan migrates from, 289; 
Mishna identical in Babylonia 
and, 299. 

Palestinian v. Talmud, Acade- 
mies, Schools, Amoraim, 17, 
39, 41n; Amoraim ordained 
by Nasi, 41; Amoraim of first 
generation, 41,42; Amoraim of 
second generation, 45; Amo- 
raim of third generation, 48; 
Academies decay, 48; authori- 
ties quoted in Babylonian Ge- 
mara, 62; authorities support 
Babylonian, 229; decisions, 
263; R. Meir a, 288; Joshua 
|e AREAS Cbg PARR Cer TEAS OAS thigs 
Amora, 292. 


Papa b. Chama, R., Amora, 48; 
disciple of Abaye and Raba, 
51, 292; new school at Nares 
of, 51; dialectical method of, 
51; another by same name as, 


5ln; answering questions, 
239; series of problems of, 
245; debates with Raba, 


Abaye, 261; authorities on, 
294 


Paradise Lost, of John Milton, 
105. 

Paragraph, section of Perak v. 
Mishna; division in Mishne 
Thora, 73. 

Parah, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis for, 13; com- 
mentary of R. Meir of Roth- 
enburg on, 297. 

Parasha, division of Siphra, 20. 

Parashoth, divisions of Siphra, 
20. 

Parallel passages, similar to Ge- 
zera Shava, 1438, 258. 

Parents and children, 276. 

Paris, auto-de-fe of Talmud at, 
Times COGICES r OL Lalmugea bt, 
77; fragments at, 299. 

Parma, codices of, 77; MSS. of 
Mishna at, 78; MSS. of Pal- 
estinian Talmud, at, 78, 299. 

Parseeism, Bibliography on, 100. 

Particles, in Mosaic Law, 124. 

Particular v. Terms; v. General 
and Particular; the, defined, 
63; terms follow general, 164; 
include general, 165; partic- 
ular and general with, 166; 
two general proceeded or fol- 
low by, 168; requiring gen- 
eral, 169; known as limita- 
tion, 183; as explanation of 
general, 183. 

Paschal Lamb, treated in Pe- 
sachim, 10; on Sabbath, 138, 
139, 145, 146; on eve of Pe- 
sach, 176n. 

Passage, v. Reconciliation of 
conflicts; parallel, 143, 258; 
explained from context, 174, 
175; contiguous, 177; differ- 
ence concerning explanation 
OmeaeL: 

Passover, treated in Pesachim, 
10; unleavened bread on, 176; 
waving of omer on, 176. 

Patriarch, Simon b. Gamaliel 
Il, 35; R: Gamaliel III, 41, 
2I0-eh Juda hlina be heaGae 
maliel IV, R. Judah III, 4, 5, 


356 


POO ee iel gel lye o 2050 me by, 
Joshua b. Levi, as collector 
109 be AGB be 

Patristic Literature, compared 
with Talmud, 105. 

Paul, pupil of Gamaliel the Eld- 
er, 286. 

Peace, chapters on, 64; a duty, 
272; virtues of, 274. 

Peah, Masechta of Zeraim, Bib- 
lical basis for, 9; Z. Frankel’s 
commentary on Palestinian 
Talmud, 71; German transla- 
tion of Palestinian Talmud, 
92; v. Special Mishnaic Ref- 
erences. 

Peiser, Simon, on Talmud, 86. 

Penal Law, no minor to major 
in, 135; analogies in Modern, 
135n; in Scriptures, 135n. 

Pentateuch, basis for oral law, 
4; rule for writing, 63; law 
of Israel, 20; on meaning of 
acquire, 149n; - juxtaposition 
in, 178; basis for Midrashim, 
250. 

Perak, single division of Ma- 
sechta, 7; Gemara attached to, 
62. 

Perakim, divisions of Masechta, 
7; number of, as basis of or- 
der of Masechtoth, 8n; num- 
ber of, 9-14; how designated 
in Mishna and Talmud, 14; in 
Rabbinical Literature, 14; 
listed after Berachoth, 15; 
number of, in Tosephta, 17; 
lacking in Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 59; in Mishne Torah, 73. 

Perek Emorai, attack on hea- 
then practices, 107. 

Perek Hashalom, nature of, 64. 

Perez b. Elias, R., of Corbeil, in 
Tosaphoth, 67, 296. 

Perla, Kalman, Encyclopedic 
work of, 302. 

Perlitz, S., on R. Abbahu, 291, 
292, 

Permission, to act, direct and 
indirect, 197. 

Persecutions, of Jews by Per- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


sians, 53; of Middle Ages, 77; 
of Saboraim, 295. 

Persian, persecutions, 53, 295; 
words in Babylonian Talmud, 
61; influence on Agada, 61; 
views in Talmud, 106. 

Personal pronoun, extension in 
use of, 126, 

Persons, with running issue, v. 
Zabim. 

Pesachim, Masechta of Moed, 
nature of, 10; fragments of 
at Cambridge, 77; MSS. of 
Babylonian at Columbia, 77; 
commentary on last Perek of, 
66°) Translations,” Gatingees 
Palestinian, 92; English of 
Babylonian Talmud, 302, 303; 
Maimonides on, 297; v. Spe- 
cial Mishnaic and Talmudic 
References. 

Pesaro, Masechtoth of Babylon- 
ian Talmud printed at, 79n. 
Peshat, method of interpreta- 

tion; LI his el 22d 

Pesikta de R. Kahana, on Di- 
visions of Mishna, 281. 

Petuchowski, on R. Ishmael, 287. 

Phariseeism, opposed by Saddu- 
cees, 140. 

Philosophers, ancient and mod- 
ern, 267; differences in an- 
cient. 274, 

Philosophy, 
Sg 

Phineas b. Jair, R., teacher of 
R. Joshua b. Levi, 291. 

Phoebus, Senior, commentary 
OTUs : 

Phrases, regarding structure of 
Mishna, 191-198; of Mishna, 
198; introducing an argu- 
ment, 247. 

Physical) in, Talmud? 10a: 

Pietrokow, edition of Talmud of, 
299; 

Piety, with knowledge, 271. 

Pilpuly26is 


Bibliography on, 


Pinner, C. M., translation of 
Babylonian Talmud _ Bera- 
choth, 90. 


Pirke Aboth v. Aboth. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES ope 


Pirke Tosaphists, 
Tosaphists, 68; 
Talmud, 79. 


included in 


Piskoth, paragraphs of Siphre, 


20. 

Plain Meaning, v. Peshat. 

Plato, deprecates labor, 272. 

Plimo, Semi-Tana, 39. 

Plongian, Mordecai, on Gezera 
Shava, 129. 

Ploughing, on Sabbath, 154. 

Poetry, Bibliography on, 100. 

Poland, study of Talmud iteG2. 

Police Law, Bibliography on, 98. 

Political Documents in Talmud, 
1038. 

Pompeii, Talmud called a, 106. 

Poor, gleanings for, 179; treat- 
ment Oi AAS, 279, 

Posen, R. ‘Samuel Edels of, 68. 

Posquieres, Abraham b. David 
ae 

Post- Talmudic, period, Aboth 
d’Rabbi Nathan belongs to, 
63; additions to Gezera Sha- 
va, 152; Memra in, literature, 
224; literature no support for 
Mechilta, 284; times, Barai- 
tha in, 286. 

Potter, on reconciliation of con- 
ichs sel con. 

Prague, Yom Tob. of, 70; -edi- 
tion of Babylonian Talmud at, 
19; 

Prayers, in Talmud, 110. 

Precepts, ethical, ritual, liturgi- 
eal, 63. 

Predicates, 
154: 

Premise, first, second of Kal ve- 
Chomer, 132; terms for, 132; 
in antecedent disputed, 136: 
contradicted by conclusion, 
140. 

Preparations v. Machshirim. 

Priests, Chanina, chief of, 25. 

Principle, general, 193; of law, 
underlying, 201; Rabbinical, 
202; decision not in accord 
with, 213; inconsistency of, 
213, 233; underlying differ- 
ence of opinion, 217, 232; of 


for Heckesh, two, 


Decisions of 


Amoraim, 225, 260; of law, 
not clearly stated, 226; of 
law, debated, 261; of moral- 
ity, 267; Rabbis develop, 269; 
of justice, 273; all- embracing, 
Paes) 

Problem, type of question, 237; 
question of, 243-244: solution 
of 244, 245; series of, 245; be- 
fore higher authority, 2.45, 
246. 

Profane Things v. Chullin; 
analogy in, not applicable to 
sanctified, 180, 

Prolepsis, anticipation, 240. 

Promises, faithfulness to, 273. 

Prohibitory commandments, 
Same for man and woman, 
153; of Sopherim, 165n; of 
working on Sabbath, 172. 

Prophets, Targum on, ‘edited by 
Re Joseph, 2933 

Pronominal suffix, extension in 
use of, 126. 

Pronoun, as basis for Gezera 
Shava, 149, 

Proom, on Raba, 294; on R. 
Nachman b. Isaac, "294: on 
Agada, 295. 

Property, found, treated in Baba 
Metzia, 11; modes of acquir- 
ing, 14, 149: embezzled, 167, 
S184; moveable, 167, 184: dam- 
ages to, 194. 

Proposition, in harmony with, 
252; refutation of, 254, 255; 
objection to, 258; without par- 
allel, 260. 

Proprietor, responsible for dam- 
age, 172. 

Proverbs, Bibliography on, 100, 
308; v. Special Biblical. Ref- 
erences. 

Provision, qualifying, 204; . ex- 
tending a, 205; limitation of 
a, 208; out of place, 209; un- 
necessary, 2097 210; repetition 
Ola 2 LONE ile similar, in two 
Masechtoth, O11, 

Pryoska, on R. Papa, 294. 

Psalms, mentioned, 144; y. Spe- 
cial Biblical References, 


358 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Psychology, Bibliography on, 
LOD gaol te 

Pumbaditha, Academy at, Mish- 
na expounded at, 40; founded 
by R. Juda, 46; surpasses 
Sura, 49; Rabba’ flees from, 
AO se Re Joseph at, 40s eA Dave 
at, "49; surpassed by Mechuza, 
50; R. Nachman at, 50; R. 
Chama Ats00. Rafram, head 
apy bile. Rte Zebid, 51s R.sDime; 
51, 294: Rafram, R. Cahana, 
Mar Zutra, 5 lay Ree A chassp: 
Raba, R. Gebiha, 52; Rafram 
II, Rechumai, R. Sama b. 
Raba aAumo. loses earlier in- 
fluence, 53; R. Jose at, 54, 60; 
Saboraic Academy at, closed, 
295. 

Punctuation, lack of, 264. 

Punishment, discussed in Mac- 
coth, 11; for neglect of duty, 
ike 

Purification v. Teharoth; ritual, 
13: 

Purim, a feast day, 10. 


Questions, asking and answer- 
ing, 237-246; types of, 237; 
negative, 237; of investiga- 
tion, 237, 238; of astonish- 
ment, 238; of objection, 239; 
of problem, 234; laid before 
higher authorities, 245; ar- 
gument to prove, 247; debate, 
261; Rab and Mar Samuel 
differ in, 262; anonymous, 
264, 

Quotations, from Mishna, 220- 
223; from Tosephta, 220-223; 
from Baraitha, 220-223; pur- 
poses of, 221; ‘referring back 
to preceding, 229, 223; in Tal- 
mud, 281; help to restore text, 
284, 

Quoting, Mishna, 220. 


R 
Rab. v. Abba Areca; title for 
Babylonian teacher, 41. 
Raba, Amora, 48, 293; pupil of 
R. Nachman, R. Chisda, col- 


league of Abaye, 50; at Me- 
chuza, 50; discussions with 
Abaye, 50, 50n; R. Papa, R. 

- Huna, pupils of, 51, 292; Ra- 
fram, R. Cahana, disciples of, 
52; Rabina, disciple of, 54; 
answers objections, 240; pro- 
pounds series, 245; opposite 
view to, 256; debates with R. 
Nachman, Rabba, Abaye, Pa- 
pa, Rabina 15) 261% Sbirthwe 
293; discussions with R. 
Huna, 293; authorities on, 
294. ; 

Rabad, v. R. Abraham b. David. 

Rabba b. bar Chama, Amora, 
47> pupil of R. Jochanan, 47% 
his nephew, R. Chiya, 293; 
authorities on, 293. 

Rabba (Rab Abba) b. Huna, 
Amora, 48; son of Huna, 49; 
succeeded R. Chisda, 49; at 
Sura, 51; authorities on, 293. 

Rabba b. Nachmani, Amora, 49; 
disciple of R. Huna, R. Juda, 
R. Chisda, on Mishna and 
Baraithoth, flees from Pumba- 
ditha, 49; succeeded by R. Jo- 
seph, 49; Abaye, nephew of, 
49; teacher of Raba, 50; an- 
swers objections, 239; refutes 
questions, 255n; opposite view 

' to, 256; debates with R. Jo- 
seph, Raba, Abaye, 261; sec- 
onded by Abaye, 262, 263; au- 
thorities on, 293. 

Rabba, of Thospia, Amora, 54; 
succeeds Mar b. R. Ashi, at 
Sura, 54; authorities on, 54n. 

Rabban, as title, 23; R. Simon 
b. Gamaliel II, 35n. 

Rabbenu, Ha-Kadosh, 289. 

Rabbi, v. Jehuda Hanasi; as 
title, 28; Palestinian title, 41. 

Rabbis, eminent, study Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 62; study Tal- 
mud, 108; use Derash and 
Peshat, 118, 119; on majority, 
122; derive laws, 122; search 
for Biblical’ support, gigas 
adopt rules of Ishmael, 127; 
on “eye” for “eye,” 134; on 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 859 


Gezera Shava, 146; on Heck- | 


esh, 158; generalize from par- 
ticular, 156; method in gen- 
eralization, 157; on unclean 
fowls, 158; on freeing slaves, 
161; on restoration of lost 
property, 171; on fitness of 
judges, 179; on extension and 
limitation, 184; taught, 222; 
cherished Bible, 268; on com- 
munity, on celibacy, 277. 


Rabbinical, v. Interpretation; 
literature, manner of desig- 
nating Perakim, in, 14; juris- 
prudence of R. Nachman, 47; 
law, R. Joseph on, 49; litera- 
ture, Geiger on, 111; inter- 
pretation, 127, 134, 135; inter- 
pretation, analogies in, 142; 
Gezera Shava in, 145n; of 
bastard, 151n, 177; of Binyan 
Ab, 156; of generalization of 
special laws, 157; resembling 
modern interpretation, 164n; 
law on prohibited marriages, 
interpretation of embezzled 
property, 167; of eating un- 
leavened bread, 176n; princi- 
ple, 202; codes accepted opin- 
ion of R. Joseph, 263; world 
in two schools, 284. 


Rabbinovicz, Raphael, review of 
printed editions of Babylon- 
ian Talmud, 80; critical edi- 
tion of Babylonian Talmud 
begun by, 80; author of Dik- 
duke Sopherim, 80. 


Rabbinowicz, Michael, transla- 
tion of Babylonian Talmud, 
fal, 

Rabe, Johann Jacob, German 
translations of Mishna, 88; 
Babylonian Berachoth trans- 
lated by, 90; Palestinian Ber- 
achoth translated by, 92; Pal- 
estinian Peah translated by, 
2, 


Rabh, the Superior, 122. 


Rabina I, Amora, pupil of Raba, 
54n; debates with Raba, 
Abaye, 261, R. Ashe, 262; Ra- 


bina II, nephew of, 294; death 
OL, 629). 

Rabina b. Huna II, Rab Abina, 
nephew of Rabina I, 294; 
Amora, 54, 54n; succeeds 
Rabba of Thospia, 55, 60; as- 
sists R. Jose in compilation 
of Talmud, 54, 60; authorities 
on, 294. 

Race, no distinction of, 279. 

Rachlin, on R. Joshua b. Levi, 
BO 

Rafram b. Papa, Amora, 51, 
51n; head of Pumbaditha, 
51n, 52; disciple of Raba, 52; 
succeeds R. Dime, 52; pupil of 
R. Chisda, authorities on, 294. 

Rafram II, Amora, 53; at Pum- 
baditha, 538; succeeded Rab 
Gebihah, 53; pupil of R. Ashi, 
294. 

Rapaport, S., on compilation of 
Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 86; 
on Agada, 295. 

Rashbam v. Samuel b. Meir. 

Rashi, on Jehuda Hanasi, 6n; 
on Baraitha of Mar Samuel, 
44n; on Babylonian Talmud, 
65; Jehuda b. Nathan, son-in- 
law of, 66, 67; R. Samuel b. 
Meir, grandson of, 66; R. 
Samuel Edels on, 68; R. She- 
maya, disciple of, 69; Berti- 
nero follows method of, 70; 
Rif accompanied by commen- 
tary of, 73; in first printed 
edition of Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 79; comments on rules 
of R. Ishmael, 128; on Men- 
achoth, 76n, 159; in Chulin, 
65b, 168; on gathering of 
Manna on Sabbath, 175n; on 
Sabbath, 49b, 178n; Sanhed- 
rin, 29a, 179n; on Kiddushin, 
21b, Shebuoth, 4b, 184n; on 
Betza, 15b, 201; on Moed Ka- 
ton, 202; on Betza, 15b, rea- 
son of law, 202; explains Pe- 
shita, 210; supporting state- 
ment of, 221n; on Succah, 149, 
223; on Betza, 9a, 227; ask- 
ing a question, 255n; no com- 


360 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


mentary of, on certain Ma- 
sechtoth, 296. 

Ratner, on Levi ib. Sissi, 290; 
Ahabat Zion v’ Yerushalaim 
of, 298. 

Rawicz, M., German translation 
of, Babylonian tractates, 90, 
303, 308. 

Reading, of Mishna, concerning 
correct, 231; 

Real analogy, 142. 

Real Encyclopedia, of Hambur- 
ger, 6n. 

Real Estate, treated in Baba 
Bathra, 11: embezzlements of, 
167, 184, 

Reaping, on Sabbath, 154. 

Reason, of law, 193, ZO dao. 
dissenting teachers i in Mishna, 
226; of law, difference con- 


cerning, 239, 244; indirect, 
264. 
Rechumai, R., Amora, 53; at 


Pumbaditha, Soy 

Reconciliation, of conflicting 
passages, 127, i S230. 

References works, on Talmud, 
86. 

Refutation, 254-260; of a propo- 
sition, O54. 255; of an argu- 
ment, 255-260. 

Refutation, of Kal ve-Chomer, 
136; 137; Ulustration of dif- 
ferent kinds of, 137, 138-sand 
reinstatement : of Hermeneu- 
tic arguments, 182; theory of, 
182; answer to weak, 242: of 


proposition, oA, O55: of. ar- 
guments, 255, 260; in debate, 
263. 


Reinstatement, of Hermeneutic 
arguments, 182. 

Rejoinder, 2438. 

Relations, domestic, to country, 
Zt, 276, i Ms conjugal, 21D, 
276: between parents and 
children, Pad SS ATE 

Religion, and ethics, aim of, 267, 
280. 

Rephall, M. I. Mishna translated 
into English, 88. 

Repetition, of a word, in exten- 


sion, 126, 126n; unnecessary, 
of a provision, 210, 

Report v. Maaseh: cited as 
Drool, 3194. snow transmitted 
in Talmud, 225; of Amora 
differs, 229. 

Reptiles, proof of cleanness of, 
141, 14in. 

Resha, beginning case, 192. 

Resh Lakish vy. R. Simon b. 
Lackish. 

Resh Methibta, 
Academy, 46. 
Resh-Sidra, academy at, 44; 

Mar Samuel, at, 44. 

Responsa, in Ahabat Zion wv’ 
Yerushalaim, 298. 

Responsibility, in case of loss, 
262; of man to God, 270. 

Restitution of property, in case 
of theft, 1338, 184; in case of 
loss, 188, 134; of embezzled 
property, 167; of found prop- 
erty, 171; pecuniary, 180. 

Restrictive rules, for conclusion, 
134, 135, 136. 

Revision, latter and first, 59. 

Revue des Etndes Juives. on R. 
EHlazar b. Hvrkanos. 287. 

Reward, for fulfillment of duty, 
PHAN 

Rhetoric interrogation, 237. 

Ribkes, Moses, Beer-ha-Gola, on 
ShuJechan Aruch, 75. 

Rif v. R. Isaac Alfasi. 

Ritual, prayers in Talmud. 110; 
Biblical support for. 123. 

Ritual Law, v. (Tur) Yore Dea; 
analogy of civil case not ap- 
plicable in, 180; Jew and Gen- 
tile separated by, 278. 

Riva di Trento, printed edition 
of Mishna at, 78. 

Roba v. Isaac b. Abdimi. 

Rodkinson, M., on history of 
Talmud, 801; English transla- 
tion of Babylonian Talmud, 
303. 

Roman, custom of marriage, 
149; law, Gajus on, 149n. 

Romans, execute Simon b. Ga- 


president of 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


maliel, 25; execute Akiba, 29; 
kul R.y Judah b.) Baba, 330; 
banish R. Jose b. Chalafta, 
Base assisted by Ry. Hlazar b. 
Simon, 38; R. Abbahu esteem- 
ed by, 46; Syrians substituted 
fOr wi Oem AW, Ol wel ein: 

Rome, school at, 30; R. Simon 
at, 34; Talmud destroyed at, 
Tina. city. «substituted. for, 
79n; Nathan b. Jechiel of, 81; 
R. Joshua b. Levi visited, 291. 

Rosanes, Jehuda, of Constanti- 
nople, Mishne l’melech on 
Maimonides, 74. 

Rosenberg, I., Grammar of, 82. 

Rosenfeld, J., translation of Be- 
rachoth by, 302. 

Rosenstein, C. D., Chrestomathy 
of, 300. 

Rosenthal, L. A., on Talmud, 85. 


Rosenthal, on differences  be- 
tween Hillel and Shammai, 
286; on Jochanan b. Zaccai, 
DCO MON mites) Osea Da udae (D. 
Tai) 572389. 

Rosh Hashana, Masechta of 
Moed, nature of, 10; transla- 
tions, German of Babylonian 
Talmud, 90; English, 303; 
Latin of Palestinian, 92; of 
Mishna, 302; MS. in Adler 
collection, 299; v. Special 
Mishnaic and Talmudic Ref- 
erences, 


Rothstein, W., 
Megilla, 303. 

Royal Library v. Munich. 

Rules v. Hermentutics; of Hillel, 
25-mOt rsnmael.5 29,309.54 of 
Jochanan, 42; Masoretic, 63; 
Sabbath and holiday, 63; for 
burial and mourning, 64; re- 
stricting application of Kal 
ve-Chomer, 134, 185, 136; re- 
stricting application’ of anal- 
ogy, 179, 180; general, 194, 
Mio eeOt alUStice (os Ol. 1sn- 
mael disputed, 309; literature 
on, 309. 


Russia, censorship in, 79n. 


translation of 


361 


Saadya Gaon, on Talmud Eretz 
Yisrael, 296; on rule of Ish- 
mael, 309. 

Saalschuetz, on Gezera Shava, 
145n. 

Sabbath, “way,’ 175; labor on, 
is 

Sabbath, Masechta of Moed, 10; 
nature of, 10; last of Pera- 
kim missing in Palestinian 
Talmud, 59; translation, Eng- 
lish csStmo0as, German. O0" 
English of Mishna, 302, 303; 
R. Samson on, 296; v. Special 
Mishnaic and Valmudic Ref- 
erences. 

Sabbath, school teachers, 113; 
precepts of, 125; importance 
of, 131; paschal lamb on, 138, 
145; wave-offering on, 154; 
labor on, 171, 172n;, manna 
Ona 4 

Sabbatical Year, The, v. She- 
biith. 

Saboraim, Babylonian teachers 
after Amoraim, 54; nature of, 
54; Rab Jose, one of, 55; 
make additions to Talmud, 60; 
put questions, 238n; Jewish 
historians on, 294, 295; edited 
Talmud, 295; R. Simuna, R. 
Ahai of Shabha, 295; perse- 
cuted, 295. 

Sachs, H., on language of Mish- 
Nac: 

Sacred Things v. Kodashim. 

Sacrifices, annual, 12; daily, 13; 
of fowls, 13; R. Jose the Gal- 
ilean on, 30; laws of, in Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 61; maintain- 
ed by study, 61. 

Sacrifices v. Zebachim. 

Sadducees, substituted for her- 
etics, 79n; ideas of, spread, 
120; make literal interpreta- 
tion, 1384; against Pharisees, 
140. 

Sages, taught Oral Law, 23; 
words of, 191; on early Mid- 
rashim, 283. 

Salome, at time of Zugoth, 28. 


362 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Sama b. Rabba, R., Amora, at | 


Sura, 53. 

Samaritan, substituted for Gen- 
tile, 79n. 

Sammter, A., German transla- 
tions of Mishna, 88; of Baby- 
lonian Baba Metzia, 90. 

Samson b. Abraham, R., Tosa- 
photh of, 67, Tosaphist, 69, 
296. 

Samson, of Chinon, on Talmud, 
83; Sefer Kerithoth of, 128. 
Samuel, Biblical book, 149n; v. 
Special Biblical References. 

Samuel v. Mar Samuel. 

Samuel Hanagid, on written 
Mishna, 6n; on Talmud, 83. 
Samuel b. Abbahu, R., Amora, 

55 


Samuel b. Meir, v. Rashbam; 
R., 66; supplements work of 
Rashi, 66, 67; Tosaphist, 67. 

Samuel b. Uri, Beth Samuel on 
Eben-Haezer, 75. 

Sanctified, analogy, 180. 

Sanhedrin, Masechta, of Nezi- 
kin, nature of, 11; Perek Che- 
lek of, not commented on, 69; 
Agadic material in, 57; trans- 
lations, Latin of Babylonian 
Talmud, 90; German of Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 90; French, 
91; Latin of Palestinian Tal? 
mud, 92; translations of Mish- 
na, 302, 303, 310; rules of 
Hillel in Tosephta, 124n; v. 
Special Talmudic and Mish- 
naic References. 

Sanhedrin, contribute to Oral 
Law, 4, 120; president of, 22; 
R. Joshua, member of, 26; 
Bene Bathyra, leaders of, 27; 
Ishmael, member of, 28; at 
Usha, 28, 35; Akiba, member 
Of 2) a Cnachammor evr te 
Nathan, Ab Beth Din of, 35, 
37; eligibility for, 141. 

Saphra, R., colleague of R. Assi, 
ADS! 

Schechter, Solomon, on Aboth 
d’ Rabbi Nathan, 63; Genizah 
discoveries of, 285; on Tal- 


mud, 301; on rules of Ish- 
mael, 309. 

Schiller-Szinessy, M., on Mish- 
na, 78; on Talmud, 84. 

Scheinen, A., on Rabban Gama. 
liel, 286. 

Schlatter, on Jochanan b. Zac. 
cai, 286. 


Schneeburger, H. W., on R. Je- 


huda Hanasi, 289. 

Schools v. Academies; Babylon- 
ian, Palestinian, 3; of Areca, 
19; Sifre produced by Baby- 
lonian, ©20; of -Shamai, 9245 
1925 “Of =i Hillel 24 gee oe 
at Lydda, 26, 287; at -Be- 
kin, 26; at, Nisitbis02 (mean 
B’ne Brak, 29; at Rome, 30; 
of R. Elazar b. Shamua, 81, 
288; of R. Ishmael, 20, 29, 36, 
283, 284, 285, 287; of Chisda, 
46; Babylonian and Palestin- 
jan differ, 198, 199; of R. 
Akiba, 283; Midrashim of R. 
Ishmael, 288, 284, 285; text- 
books of, 285; difference be- 
tween those of Hillel and 
Shamai, 192, 286; for chil- 
dren, 290. 

Schorr, on Halacha le’moshe 
Mi-Sinai, 309. 

Schulbaum, M., Neuhebrdisch- 
deutsches Worterbuch of, 82. 

Schwab, Moise, French transla- 
tion of Berachoth, 92. 

Schwartz, Adolph, new edition 
of Tosephta, 17n; on differ- 
ences between Hillel and Sha- 
mai, 286; on rules of Ishmael, 
309. 

Sciences, Bibliography on, 100, 
308, 309. 

Scribes v. Sopherim. 

Scriptural, grounds, 201; pas- 
sages developed by Rabbis, 
BO. 

Scriptures, read, 14; badly in- 
terpreted in Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 106; hermeneutics for, 
117; two methods of interpre- 
tation of, 117, 123; basis for 
law in, 121, 122n; Kal ve- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 363 


Chomer, 131, 135n; Gezera 
Shava based in, 143; new law 
deduced from, 148, 152; Bin- 
yan Ab from, 159, 160; gen- 
eral law in, 173; quoted a 
source of law, 201; contradic- 
tion between two passages of, 
240; all embracing principle 
of law in, 279; legal portion 
of, basis for Midrashim, 2838. 

Scroll, The, v. Megilla. 

Sechan-Zib, R. Nachman at, 47; 
Academy at, 292. 

Seclusion, disapproved, 277. 

Second Law, definition of Mish- 
na, 6: 

Second Tithe v. Maaser Sheni. 

Secret Scroll, for private use of 
traditional law, 4n. 

Section v. Seder. 

Sedarim, orders of, or series of 
Mishna, 7; listed with Ma- 
sechtoth, 9-14; codices of, 77; 
MSS. of, 78. 

Seder v. Section; division of 
Mishna, 7; list of Masechtoth 
in, 9-14. 

Seder Olam, 
Jose, 33. 

Seeds v. Zeraim. 

Sefer Kerithoth, of R. Samson, 
128; Baraitha of R. Eliezer. 
128. 

Sefer Torah, a Minor Treatise, 
296. 

Segal, on language of Mishna, 
282. 


ascribed to R. 


Selfishness, warning against, 
Olde 

Self, cultivation, preservation 
Oral 


Seligson, M., on R. Jose b. Cha- 
LALLA A Sou ON SIMON), 
Jochai, 288; on Tosaphoth, 
297. 

Semachoth y. Ebel Rabbathi. 

Sepha, end of case, 192, 211. 


Sepher Ha-Yad v. Mishne 
Thora. 

Septuagint, supplies Gezera 
Shava, 147n; explanation 


from context of, 174. 


Sepphoris, academy at, 37; R. 
Janai lived at, 39; Mishna ex- 
pounded at, 40; R. Chanina b. 
Chama at, 41. 

Series v. Sedarim; 
lems, 245. 

Service, at Temple daily, 13; 
reading Scriptures at public, 
14; rules for Sabbath, etc., 
63; study of Talmud a relig- 
ious, 107; public in Talmud, 
110. 

shamai, last of - Zugoth, 23; 
SCHOULOL me 24s OPINIONS a7 OF 
schools of, 192; differences 
between School of Hillel and 
School of, 286. 

Shamaites v. School of Shamai. 

Shebiith, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 9; v. Spe- 
cial Mishnaic References. 

Shebuoth, Masechta of Nezikin, 
8n; nature of, Biblical basis 
for, 11; v. Special Mishnaic 

and Talmudic References. 

Sheeltot, of R. Achai, 295. 

Shekalim, Masechta of Moed, 
Biblical basis for, 10; in 
Babylonian Talmud, 60; com- 
mentary of Palestinian, by 
Solomon Syreleio, 7i; Latin 
translation of Palestinian 
Talmud, 92; English transla- 
tion of Babylonian, 303; v. 
Special Mishnaic References. 

Shela, R., president of Academy 
at, 44. 

Sheloam Yerushalayim, of N. 
Trebitsch, 298. 

Shemaiah, one of Zugoth, 23. 

Shemaya, R., disciple of Rashi, 
69; commentary on M. Mid- 
doth, 69. 

Sherira Gaon, author of Igge- 
reth, on oral law of R. Jehuda 
Hanasi, 6n; on order of Ma- 
sechtoth, 8n; on R. Jochanan 
b. | Napacha, °290:- on, Raba, 
205ee Ona Unasbe Natnan.coe: 
on Saboraim, 295; on Sabo- 
raic edition, on R. Simuna, 
205. 


of prob- 


364 


Shesh Erke Hamishna, for di- 
vision of Mishna, 281. 

Shesheth, R. Amora, 45; biog- 
raphy, 46: disciple of Rab and 
Samuel, 46: memory of, 46; 
opposed iB, Chisda, AT; taught 
R. Joseph, 49; debates R. 
Huna, R. Nachman, R. Chis- 
da, 261: authorities on, 292. 

Shitomir, "edition of Palestinian 
Talmud, 71; printed editions 
of, 80, 300. 

Sh’mone Perakim, of Maimoni- 
des, translated by Samuel Ibn 


Tibbon, 69. 
Shulchan Aruch, of R. Joseph 
Karo, 74, 75; annotations and 


commentaries to, 75. 

Sick, treatment of, 279. 

Sifra v. Siphra. 

Sifthe Cohen, of R. Sabbathai 
Cohen, on Shulchan Aruch, 
75. 

Silhi, Academy at, 47. 

Simai b. Ashe, father 
Ashe, 51. 

Simanim v. Mnemonical signs; 
chapters of Turim, 74; divid- 
ed into paragraphs by Karo, 
75; explained, 76. 

Similar provisions, 211. 

Similarity, of arguments, 250. 

Simlai, R., Amora, at Lydda, at 
Nahardea, 43; controversies 
with Christian dogmatists, 
291; authorities on, 291. 

Simon b. Abba, Amora, 45; 
brother of Chiya b. Abba, 45, 
292; emigrated from Baby- 
lonia, disciple of R. Jochanan, 
45; authorities on, 291. 

Simon Dwbathyraske bana eay. 

Simon b. Elazar, R., Tana, dis- 
ciple of R. Meir, 38; authori- 
ties on, 289; on Tosephta, 289. 

Simon b. Gamaliel, R., Tana, 24; 
son of Elder, executed by Ro- 
mans, 25, 286; by Titus, 28; 

Simon b. Gamaliel II, Tana, 31; 
patriarch, honors R. Jehuda, 
32; controversies with R. 
Jose, 38; son of Gamaliel II, 
called Rabbi, 36; authority on 


Olmmn: 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Halacha, knew Greek, 36; R. 
Jehuda Hanasi, son ‘of, "36: 
appoints R. Nathan, 37: R. 
Elazar b. Simon, disciple of, 
58; authorities on, 288. 

Simon, son of Hillel, 286. 

Simon b. Kappara, v. Bar Kap- 
para 

Simon Dd. Lakish, R., Amora, 
Resh Lackish, 41; acquaint- 
ance of R. Jochanan, 43; orig 
inal in Agadic teachings, Ao 
refutes question, 255n; de- 
bates with R. Jochanan, 2646 
authorities on, 290, 291. 

Simon the Just, High Priest, one 
of Great Synod, ans 

Simon (b. Jochai), R., Tana, 31; 
disciple of Akiba, 333 con- 
demned to death, 33; at Te- 
koa, at Rome, 34: disciple of 
Akiba, 20, 34; as author of 
Siphre, 20, 34, 285; teacher R. 
Jehuda Hanasi, 37; son of, 38; 
Mechilta of, 284; authorities 
on, 288. 

Simon\b. Nanos, R., Tanayece. 
authority on civil law, 30. 

Simon b. Shatach, one of Zu- 
goth, 23. 

Simon II, last of Great Synod, 
Bas 

Simuna, R., Sabora, 295. 

Sinai, laws from, 123. 

Singer, A., Chrestomathy of, 82. 

Siphra, akin to Mishnayi7; 
name for, 19; nature and Bib- 
lical basis for, 19; additions 
to, editions of, 19n; divisions 
of; 20;>Baraitha’ of, 2iazco. 
commentary by Abraham b. 
David-on,.19n; RR. Jehudash 
Ilai as author of, 32; Hillel’s 
rules in, 124; Ishmael’s rules 
in, 128; quotations from, 220, 
222; on love of neighbor, 279; 
of school of R. Akiba, 284, 
285; school of Ishmael in, 
287; R. Chiya as author of, 
289; Special References to, 
TAd Sel 4 Loe 

Siphre, akin to Mishna, 17; na- 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 365 


ture of, Biblical basis for, au- 
thorship of, 20, 284; differ- 
ences in style of, 20; divisions 
Orel mbaraltnigOfmclsecso- 
editions of, 20n; R. Simon, as 
author of, 34; quotations 
livereyenee WPAN CLAS SAVES Lee 
school of R. Ishmael, 284, 285, 
293-6 OLpschooy olan Akiba; 
284; includes Mechilta, 284; 
on Numbers of school of R. 
Ishmael, on Deuteronomy of 
school of Akiba, 285; Halachic 
nature of, 285; on Deuteron- 
omy, 285; Talmud on, of Si- 
mon b. Jochai, 285; mentions 
R. Ishmael, 287; references 
TOwe Die Loon, el iin. 

Sirkes, Joel, R., Bet Hadash on 
Pairs 299) 

Sisters-in-law v. Yebamoth. 

Slaves, free-will of, 140; free- 
ing injured, 161; male or fe- 
male killed by beast, 172. 

Slavery, Bibliography on, 98, 
307; laws restricting time of, 
144, 

S’mag, of R. Moses, 67. 

Solomon b. Abraham Algazi, on 
hermeneutics, 128. 

Solomon b. Adereth, R., 67. 

Solomon Isaaki, R., v. Rashi. 

Solomon b. Joseph, translated 
commentary on Nezikin, 69. 

Solution, of the problem, 244, 
245. 

Soncino, MSS. printed at, 79n. 

Sopherim, contributors to oral 
law5743,922, 4120, 

Sopherim, v. Scribes; 21 chap- 
ters of, 63; editions of, 63n. 
Sophistical inference, 189, 140- 
141: conclusion, 148; as Geze- 

ra Shava, 149. 

Sota, Masechta of Nashim, Bib- 
lical basis for, 11; evidence of 
additions to Mishna in, 6n; on 
order of Masechtoth, 8n; 
translations, Latin of Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 92; of Mishna, 
308; Tosaphoth of R. Samson 
on, 296; R. Asher’s commen- 


tary on, 296; v. Special Mish- 
naic and Talmudic Refer- 
ences. 

Source, of law, 200, 201, 244. 

Southern Judea, communities 
organized by R. Joshua b. 
Levi, 291. 

Spain, study of Talmud in, 62; 
Moses Maimonides in, 68; R. 
Isaac Alfasi in, 72; R. Asher 
of, 73; Shem Tob Ibn Gaon 
Ong ae 

Special v. Binyan Ab; v. Partic- 
ular; law, 156; provision, 162; 
generalization refuted, 182. 

Sprache und Literatur, on lan- 
guage of Mishna, 15n. 

Stalks of Fruit v. Uk’tzin. 

“Stam,” Mishna, 191. 

Stein, A., on Talmud, 86. 

Stein, L., on R. Akiba, 287. 

Stein, S., on language of Mish- 
na, 282 

Steinthal, on virtues, 274. 

Steinschneider, M., on MSS. of 
Talmud, 78. 

Stevenson, W. B., Grammar of, 
300. 

Stoning, form of punishment, 
170; R. Jehuda b. Iai on, 178. 

Strack, H. L., on Talmud, 85; on 
origin of Mishna, 281, 283; on 
lan:ruage of Mishna, 15n; on 
Baraitha, 286; on teachers of 
Gemara and Mishna, 286; on 
differences between Hillel and 
Shamai, 286; on Akabia b. 
Mahalel, 286; on Gamaliel the 
Elder, 286; on Akiba, 287; on 
Jehuda Hanasi, 289; on Aga- 
da, 295; on commentaries of 
Maimonides, 297; MSS. of 
Talmud photographed by, 
299; bibliography on editions 
of Talmud of, 299; on Tal- 
MudweoO b-weetranslation 01 
Mishna, of, 302. 

Straschun, D. O., translated 
Babylonian Taanith, 90. 

Streane, A. W., translated into 
English Babylonian Chagiga, 
92. 


366 INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


study,.ofsialmud;#81-87--300- 
302. 

Subjects, two, for Heckesh, 153. 

Subsequent, unexpected case, 
196. 

Succah, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
licalys basis s401 44 04a Latin 
translation of Palestinian 
Talmud, 92; English of Baby- 
lonian, 808; Tosaphoth of R. 
Samson on, 296; MSS. of, 299; 
v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
ences. 

Succession, of Masechtoth dis- 
puted, 8, 8n; or order Masech- 
toth, 9-14. 

Sulzbach, printed 
Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 

Superfluous, expressions in Ge- 
ZOLA onava, eLO0,. Lol: case: 
212; Memra, 228. 

Supernaturalism, Superstition, 
Bibliography on, 101; from 


Persians in Babylonian Tal- . 


mud, 106; attacked, 107. 

Supplement v. Tosephta. 

Sura, Academy at, Mishna ex- 
pounded at, 40; R. Huna pre- 
sided at, 46; R. Juda at, 46, 
292 > Re Chisdamat, 46,8292: 
Rabba at, 49; eclipsed by 
Pumbaditha, 49; restored, 49; 
RiaAshaeattinles Ose Varese 
mar iat, 53} thew ldesb.sAbin 
succeeded Mar Jemar at, 53; 
Mar bar R. Ashe succeeds at, 
53; R. Ashe at, 538; Rabba of 
Thospia at; 54; Rabina’ II at, 
55, 60; R. Jehudai Gaon of, 
72; opposed to Palestinian 
schools, 199; when referred to, 
199. 

Surenhusius, G., Latin transla- 
tion of Talmud of, 88. 

Surgery, Bibliography on, 308. 

Syllogism v. Kal ve-Chomer. 

Symbols, in Talmud, 80n. 

Symmachos, Tana, 36; disciple 
of R. Meir, 37. 

Synagogue, sanctity of, 14. 

Syrians, substituted for © Ro- 
mans, 79n. 

Syriac, of R. Jehuda Hanasi, 37. 


edition of. 


Syrileio, Solomon, exile from 
Spain, commentary on Pales- 
tinian Talmud, 71; commen- 
tary of, 298. 

Systems, of R. Ishmael, 124; of 
R. Nahum, 124, 125; R. Akiba 
develops, 125. 

Szafed, R. Abraham de Boton 
of, 74. 


ay 


Taanith, Masechta of Moed, on 
order of Masechtoth, 8n; na- 
ture of, 10; translations of, 
German of Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 90; Latin of Palestinian, 
92; English of Palestinian, 
303; of Mishna, 302; v. Speci- 

_al Mishnaic and Talmudic 
References. 

Tabernacle, Sabbath 
agreement with, 178. 

Tabernacles, v. Succah. 

“Taking up and throwing back”, 
261. 

Talmud (general), v. Gemara, 
v. Talmud, Babylonian; and 
Talmud, Palestinian; defini- 
tion of, 3n. 56; compilation 
and nature of, 3, 109; a com- 
mon name for, 7; number ¢f 
Masechtoth in, 9-14; com- 
pendium to, 17; Mechilta 
quoted in, 18; Siphra in, 18; 
Siphre in, 20; Agada of, 32; 
principle of Symmachos in, 
37; quotes Chizkia, 42; dis- 
ciple of Rab in, 44; Baraitha 
of Mar Samuel in, 44n; 
quotes R. Elazar, 45; quotes 
R. Abbahu, 45; quotes Rabba 
b. bar Chama, Ulla, 47; calls 
Rabba, 49; Abaye, Raba in, 
50; Rabina completes Baby- 
lonian, 54; begun by R. Ashi, 
52, 54; name of Rabina in, 
54n; “records = Rv VAchaiga: 
Huna, R. Samuel b, Abbahu. 
55; traces of memoranda used 
by R. Ashi in, 60n; Apocrypha 
of the Talmud, 638, 64; refer- 
ences to Ebel Rabbathai, 
Callah, Derech Eretz, 64; 


laws in 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 367 


difficulties of, 65; commen- 
taries to, 65, 71; Tosaphoth 
in, 67; later commentaries to, 
Go eee eee Lranclationss a OL 
Maimonides appended to, 69; 
terminology of, 70; epitomes 
of, 72, 738; codes of, 73-76; 
epitome of R. Asher in, 738; 
rules after, in Turim, 75; re- 
ferences to Shulchan Aruch in 
editions of, 75; glosses in, 75; 
Biblical references in, 76; 
parallel passages, 76;  col- 
lected Agadic portions of, 76; 
vandalism against, 77, 77n; 
MSS. of printed editions of, 
77-80, 299; auxiliaries to 
study of, 81-87; 300-302; lexi- 
cons for, 81, 300; grammars 
for, 82, 300; chrestomathies 
for, 82, 301; works on, 83-87, 
301-302; translations of, 88- 
90, 302-303; opinions on value 
of, 103-114; second to Bible, 
107; study, substitute for re- 
ligious service, 107; in our 
times, 108, 110; no Judaism 
without, 109, 110; Bible inter- 
preted in, 110; ethics in, 110; 
Geiger on, 111; Jost on, 112; 
methods of interpretation, 
117; legal hermeneutics of, 
118; untraceable tradition in, 
123; praises R. Eliezer, 127; 
Kobak on, 128; sophistical in- 
ference in, 189; mental tour- 


naments in, 141; Gezeroth 
Shavorneninvwe 1475 149n 33) or 
restricted Gezera  Shava, 


151n; on general, particular, 
and general, 167; explanation 
from context of, 174; forms 
of labor in, 177; on reading 
text, 185; based on hermeneu- 
tics, 187; climax in cases, 196; 
explains “Peshita”, 210; Mem- 
ra in, 224; rhetoric interroga- 
tion in, 237; astonishment in, 
238n; strained attempt to re- 
move contradiction in, 241; 
problem questions in, 243; 
arguments to prove in, 247; 
direct and indirect arguments 


in, 284; refutation in Talmud, 
ZOU waestOrtiorie in, 201.) in- 
direct argument in, 251, 252; 
directs vrargzument = rin)? 252; 
minor discussions in, 261; de- 
bate in, 262; succinct and 
elliptical expressions of, 264; 
ethical teachings of, 267; 
maxims in, 267n; no system 
of ethics in, 268; on fairdeal- 
ing, 278; charity in, 274; re- 
lations of life in, 275; not il- 
liberal, 278; charity, veracity, 
peace toward Heathen, 279; 
quotations in, 281; on Simon 
b. Jochai, 285; Baraitha in, 
285; on relationship of Ga- 
maliel to Hillel 286; on birth 
of Raba, 298; laws fixed by 
Saboraim in, 295; legends in 
Agada of, 295; of Eretz Is- 
rael, “d’Maarba”, “dilan” 296; 
Tosaphoth in, 297; of com- 
mentary of R. Meir in, 297; 
commentary of Hai Gaon in 
Teharothe olse) 29 13.8) biblid- 
graphy on editions of, 299. 


Talmud (Babylonian) name of, 


3, 296; order of Masechtoth 
of, 8; list of Masechtoth, 9- 
14; Vienna’ edition of, 17n; 
completed, 41; by Rabina, 54; 
by kh Ashe: b2)1504s109 ;) cities 
Reshmlakiste45-uek. desb: 
Abin and Mar Jemar work 
on, 538; given finishing touch 
by Saboraim, 55; more noted 
than Palestinian, 59; revised 
by R. Ashe, Babina II, R. Jose, 
Saboraim, 60, 295; extent of, 
GU LUD DA. Cada nein eg Ol: 
arrangement of, 62; where 
studied, 62; commentaries on, 
65, 66-71, 296; source of Rab- 
binical laws, 72; epitomes of, 
72, 73; codes of, 73-76; Agadic 
portions collected, 76; MSS. 
of, 77; first printed edition of, 
78; other editions of, 79, 79n, 
80, 299; censors mutilate, 79; 
translations of, 89-90, 302- 
303; defects of, 106; period 
of, 106; distinct from Pales- 


368 


tinian, 107; bibliography on 
editions of, 299. 

Talmud (Palestinian) name of, 
3, 58; use of “Halacha” in, 8; 
order of Masechtoth, 8; list 
of Masechtoth in, 9-14; found- 
ation laid by R. Jochanan, 42; 
completed, 42, 48, 58, 296; 
cites Resh Lakish, 43; quotes 
R. Jonah, 48; research on, 
58n; Maimonides on, 58; time 
and extent of, 58; arrangement 
of, 62; where studied, com- 
mentaries on, 70-71, 298; col- 
lected Agadic portions of, 76; 
MSS. of, 78, 299; complete 
printed edition of, 80; other 
editions of, 298, 299, 300; 
translations of, 92, 303; less 
noted than Babylonian, 107; 
known by Babylonian Amor- 
aim, 289, 290; not edited by 
Saboraim, 295; in Gaonic 
period, 296; Zunz’ commen- 
tary on Zeraim, of, 298; 
quoted in Ahabat Zion v’ Yeru- 
shalayim, 298; reconstructed 
text of, 298; fragments of, in 
Genizah, 298; commentary of 
Syrileio on, 292: used to cor- 
rect Mishna, 299. 

Talmudic, idiom, “buy” in, 149n; 
interpretation of Heckesh, 
152; interpretation of iden- 
tical provisions, 160; view of 
Mosaic law, 162; interpreta- 
tion of working on Sabbath, 
175n; period, Biblical text in, 
185; refutation of a proposi- 
tion, 255, 259; literature, age 
of, 268; ethics, 267-280; sages, 
nature of, 268, 277; ethics 
based on Bible, 268; teachings 
on duties of man, 270; sages 
on labor, 272; ethics, maxims 
against austerity and extra- 
vagance, 277; ethics, liberal 
spirit of, 280; literature, no 
support for term Mechilta, 
284; treatises, commentary of 
R. Asher on, 298; texts, 299; 
times and history, 301. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Tam, reason of law, 1938, 247. 


Tam, Rabbenu, Tosaphist, 67; 
on son of Akiba, 35n. 


Tamid, not in Mishna, 281; v. 
Thamid. 

Tana, as teacher of oral law, 
23; first use in Gemara, 23; as 
reciter of Baraithoth, 40: 
Kama, former teacher, 191; 
supplies another name for 
law, 201; anonymous opinions 
of, 203, 216, 


Tanaim, decisions of, 4; period 
of, 23. distinguished from 
Amoraim, 23; bibliography 
on, 238n; first’ generation of, 
24° ‘second generation of, 25; 
third generation of, 28; fourth 
generation of, 31; fifth gen- 
eration of, 36; sixth genera- 
tion of, 39; semi-, 39; more 
independent than Amoraim, 
40; Opposing opinions of, 42; 
semi-, counted as Amoraim, 
4in; Gezera Shava of, 47; re- 
ject extension and limitation, 
184; contrary to teaching of 
final decision of, 226; differ- 
ence between Amoraim and, 
234, 235; Middot and Tamid 
not in Mishna of, 281; base 
Midrash on Pentateuch, 2833 
Baraitha as literature of, 286; 
Ben Zoma, one of, 288. 


Tanaitic, Midrashim of Penta- 
teuch, 283; on Exodus, 284; 
traditional statements of Bar- 
aitha, 285, 286. 


Targum, of Bible by R. Joseph, 
49; Onkelos of Derash, 118; 
on prophets, 293. 

Tarphon, oR.,> Lana.) 2oeeom 
discussions with Akiba, 28, 
29; with R. Jose the Galilean, 
30; disciples, R. Jehuda, R. 
Jose b. Chalafta, 32; ordained 
by Juda b. Baba, 33; authori- 
ties on, 287; saw Temple, op- 
posed Judeo-Christian wor- 
ship, 287; in early church 
literature, 287. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 36% 


Tausik, Solomon, on Aboth d’- 
Rabbi Nathan, 63n. 

Tautology, in Mishna, 207, 208. 

ee vane Abr, on Derech Eretz, 

n. 

Taylor, C., The Sayings of Jew- 
ish Fathers of, 88, 302. 

Te. v. The. 

Teacher, former, 
mous, 191. 

Teachers, anonymous, 216; in 
Baraitha, 220; contesting, 
232; 200; Of Academy, 241, 
series propounded by Bapy- 
lonian, 245; in debate, 261, 
dispute on basis of Rab and 
Samuel, 262; names of prom- 
nent, -2645s public,..263,. of 
Mishna and Gemara, 286. 

Teachings, as part of Kal ve- 
Chomer, 132; homiletical, 224; 
of ethics, Biblical, 264; of 
Talmud, ethical, 267, 268: 
outline of, 269-280; on duties 
of man, 270; charity in Buib- 
lical, 274; Jew and Gentile 
with regard to moral, 279. 

Tebul Yom, Masechta of Te- 
haroth, nature of, 14. 

Techilath Chochma, on Talmudic 
terminology, of Jacob Chagiz 
70. 

Teharoth, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
Masechtoth of, 13; treated in 
Palestinian Talmud, 60; Nid- 
da of, in Babylonian Talmud, 
60; reasons for law of, 60; 
Mar on Teharoth, 69; com- 
mentary by R. Samson and R. 
Asher, 69. 

Teharoth, Masechta of Teha- 
roth, Biblical basis for, 13; 
Maimonides on, 297; R. Asher 
b. Jechiel on, 298. 

Tekoa, Academy at, 34. 

Temple, second, 4, 15: daily ser- 
vice in, 13; measurements Ol, 

13; destruction of, 25, 26, 73; 
tradition referring to, 26; ser- 
vice, 80; seen by Tarphon, 
287; destruction of, 287. 

Tents v. Ohaloth. 


191; anony- 


Tephillin, 
PAL ep 
Terminology, of Mishna, 191 ff; 
of Talmud, 192; works on, 

309. 

Terms v. General and Particu- 
lar; Talmudic, used in draw- 
ing “inference, 132; with “all’’, 
“whatsoever” paket regarding 
structure of Mishna, para- 
graph, 191-197; comprehen- 
sive or limiting, 203; out of 
place, 209; used in referring 
Mishna, 220; used in quoting 
Tosephta and Baraitha, 231; 
difference concerning explana- 
tion of, 231; differences con- 
cerning explanation of, 231; 
introducing an argument, 247; 
used in refutation, 254; used 
by school of Akiba and Ish- 
mael, 284. 

Testimonies vy. Eduyoth; 
through the, 118. 

Texts, reconstructed, 298, 299. 

Teyubta, v.. Teshuba,’ 228, 233, 
ZAO eA aD, 

Thamid, v. Tamid; Masechta of 
Kodashim, Biblical basis for, 
13; sections of, in Babylonian 


a Minor Treatise, 


Talmud, 60; commentary on, 
Go; 
Themura, Masechta of Koda- 


shim, Biblical basis for, 12; 
v. Special Talmudic Refer- 
ences. 

Theology, Bibliography on, 317, 
318. 


Theosophic, speculations, 288. 

Therumoth, Masechta of Zeraim, 
Biblical basis for, 9. 

Thora, manner of interpreting, 
28: word of, 120; language 
different from human, 125; 
not different from human, 
126; urged to study, 271. 

Thora Or, Biblical references in 
Talmud, 76. 

Tiberias, Academy at, 37; 
Mishna expounded at, 40; R. 
Jochanan at, 42; R. Ame, R. 
Assi at, 45; Talmud com- 


370 


pleted at, 58; Jose b. Tadai 
at, 140; R. Jonah, R. Jose 
BRIN BAS Bae 

Tithes, The v. Maaseroth. 

Toledo, R. Asher of, 73. 

Torah v. Thora. 

Torath Cohanim, v. Siphra. 

Tosaphists, authors of Tosa- 
photh, 67; decisions of, 68; 
authorities on, 297. 

Tosaphoth, on R. Jehuda Hanasi, 
6n; on Talmud, 66; criticize 
R. Chananel and Rashi, 67; 
authorities mentioned in 67; 
in our Talmud editions, 67, 
299; on Yoma,, 67; decisions 
in, 68; references to 68; in 
Mishna, 78; in first printed 
edition of Babylonian Talmud, 
79; asking a question, 255; 
of R. Eliezer of Touques, 296: 
of R. Perez, R. Samson, 296; 
of R. Meir of Rothenberg, 
Pa 

Tosephta, akin to Mishna, 17, 
2O2 LOO en explained, meine 
arrangement of, 17, 283; com- 
pleted, 17; where printed, 17n; 
critical researches on, 18n; 
Baraitha of, 21, 286; quotes 


R. Jochanan the Sandelar, 34; 


to Pirke Aboth, 37, 63; opin- 
ions of Symmachos in, 37; of 
R. Jose ben Juda, 38; men- 
tions Tanaim, 39; R. Chiya, 
A compiler mole o ecco, cao: 
R. Oshaya, a compiler of, 39; 
Masechtoth in form of, 63; 
treatises in, 283; treatises of 
Mishna not identical with, 
202,) 0205 4), quotations arom, 
2022200222" nelimilnacos 
order follows R. Meir, 283; 
texts used by Amoraim, 288; 
ResSimonsbs Blazarvin,: 230° 

Totterman, C. A., on R. Elie- 
zer’s leaning toward Christi- 
anity, 287. 

Touques, Tosaphoth of, 67; R. 
Eliezer of, 67. 

Traditional Law v. Law; v. 
Oral Law; authority of, 120; 
no basis for new, 1386; derived 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


by Gezera Shava, 150, 155; 
by Heckesh, 155; on duties of 
women, 153; on opening of 
courts, 153; on fitness of 
judges, 178; analogy to, 180; 
interpretation of, prefers 
Masora, 186. 

Traditions, in oral law, 120; 
legal,» or ritual Jaw; ices 
origin of, 128; additions to, 
124; exclusions of, 124; au- 
thority of, necessary for 
Gezera Shava, 1538; originate 
in Scriptures, 186; reports 
by, 224; supports argument, 
249; Baraithoth were, 285, 
286; of Academy, 295. 

Translations, of Mishna, 88, 302, 
310; of Talmud, 88-92; 302- 
303, 310, 89n; of Kuthim, 296. 

Treatise v. Masechta; oldest of 
Mishna, 282; minor, 64, 296. 

Trebitsch, N., on Palestinian 
Talmud, Shelom Yerushalay- 
im, 298. 

Trespass v. Meila. 

Trespass-offering, of leper, 173; 
blood wsed for, 178. 

Troyes, Rashi of, 65. 

Truth, sacredness of, 273. 

Tschernowitz, Ch., on Tosa- 
photh, 296. 

Tuck v. Touques. 

Tur, a commentary of R. Jacob 
b. Asher, 74; basis for Shul- 
chan Aruch, 298, 299. 

Ture Zahab, commentary on 
Shulechan Aruch, by R. David 
b. Samuel Halevi, 75. 

Turim, of R. Jacob b. Asher, 
74; differs from code of 
Maimonides, 75; remodeled in- 
to law-book by Joseph Karo, 
iy 


Ugolinus, Latin translation of 
Babylonian Talmud of, 90; 
Several treatises of Palesti- 
nian Talmud translated by, 
92. 

Ukba I. Mar, contemporary of 
Samuel, 44; Exilarch, 291; 
authorities on, 291. 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Ukba II, Mar, 291. 

Uk’tzin, Masechta of Teharoth, 
nature of, 14; Mishna, evi- 
dence of addition to, 6n. 

Ulla (b. Ishmael), Amora, 47; 
as teacher, 47; authorities on, 
293; 

Umanski, on Abba Areca, 291. 

Uncertain, The v. Demai. 

Uncircumcised, The v. Orla 

Undisputed, Mishna, 191. 


University Library, at Cam- 
bridge, 77. 
Unnecessary, provisions of 


Mishna, 209; repetition, 210; 
abundance of analogous cases, 
palates 

Unwritten law v. Oral Law 

Urschrift, of Geiger, on Mechil- 
Talon. 

Usha, Sanhedrin at, 28; re- 
established at, 381, 32; R. 
Jose b. Chalafta returns to, 
33; R. Simon (b. Jochai) at, 
33s heeblazareb. ed acob at, 
35; academy transferred to, 
Bose ose Nathansat,. 30; 


V 
Vatican Library, of Rome, 77; 
codices of Talmud at, 177; 
MSS. of Lunz in, 299. 
Vaw, extension in use of, 126. 
Venice, Talmud destroyed at, 


77n; printed edition of Mishna | 


at, 78; edition of Babylonian 
Talmud at, 78; late printed 
edition at, 79; first edition of 
Palestinian at, 80. 

Verb, extension in use of, 126, 
126n; use of, in general and 
particular, 1638n. 

Vessel v. Khelim 

Vidal di Tolosa, Don, Maggid 
Mishne, on Maimonides, 74. 

Vienna, R. Samuel Jafe of, 76; 


printed edition of Babylonian 


Talmud, at 79. 
Virgin, for a High Priest, 140. 


Vives mei Lealmud,)) i268); 
charity one of, 274. 
Volz, translation of Mishna 


Rosh Hashana, 302. 


Voluntary, as opposite to com- 
manded, 139. 

Vortraege, of Zunz, 57n; on 
Halacha and Agada, 57n; on 
Aboth d’Rabbi Nathan, 63; 
on Sopherim, 63n; on Ebel 
Rabbathi, 64n; on Derech 
Eretz, 64n. 

Vowels, text without, 185. 

Vows, v. Nedarim; annulment 
OL gales 


W 
Walton, W., translation of 
Mishna, 88. 
Warsaw, printed edition of 


Babylonian Talmud at, 79. 

Wassertrilling, on Eliezer b. 
Hyrkanos, 287. 

Wave-offering, on Sabbath, 154. 

Weinstein N. J., on Agada, 295. 

Weiss, I. H., Dor Dor Ve-Dor- 
shav of, 6n; on: written 
Mishna, 6n; on language of 
Mishna, 15n; on Tosephta, 
18n; edition of Mechilta of, 
19; introduction to Siphra of, 
19n; Yon. Baraitha,: 21n;.".on 
Tanaim, 25n; on Amoraim, 
42n; on compilation of Pa- 
lestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
Talmud, 84; on Rabban Ga- 
amliel the Elder, 286; on R. 
Meir’s death, 288; on R. 
Gamaliel II, 290; on Joshua 
b. Levi, 291; on Rab b. Huna, 
293; on Rabba b. Nachmani, 
293; on Rafram b. Papa, 294; 
grammar of, 3800; __biblio- 
graphy on Introduction to 
Talmud, 301; on Saboraim 
criticized by Halevi, 295. 

Wells v. Mikvaocth 

Wesen und Uhrsprung of I. H. 
Duenner, on Tosephta, 18n. 

Wiesner, Gibeath Jeruschalaim 
of, 58n; on completion of 
Palestinian Talmud, 58n; on 
Talmud, 8&4, 87. 

Wife, treatment of, 276; need 
Ol; iis 

Will, of man, free-, 270; of God, 
270s Oi Le 


372 


Williams, A. Lukyn, translation 
of Berachoth, Mishna and 
Tosephta, 302. 

Wilna, Elija, Hagahoth Yeru- 
shalmi of, 298. 

Wilna, Talmud edition of, 65, 
79; most recent edition of, 


298, 300. 
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, 
of Geiger, on order. ot 


Masechtoth, 8n. 

Witchcraft, in Babylonian .Tal- 
mud, 106; a capital crime, 
Ge 

“With”, use of, 124. 

Witkind on Akiba, 281; on R. 
Jochanan, 290. 

Wolff, S. A., Chrestomathy of, 
300. 

Woman, duties of, 153; killed 
by beast, 172; bastard, 181. 

Women v. Nashim 

Words, explained from context, 
174; illustration by, 174; ex- 
plaining, in Mishna, 198. 

Works, akin to Mishna, 17. 

Worship, modes of, 113. 

Written v. Scriptures; v. Law; 
lawn Us 


for expounding, 123, 124; law, 


going beyond, 153; or not, 
Mishna, 4, 5, 281. 

Winsche, August, German | 
translation of Babylonian | 
Agadic parts, 90, 303; of 


Palestinian, 92. 


NG 
Yadayim, Masechta of Teha- 
roth, nature of, 14; v. Special 
Mishnaic references. 
Yad Hachazaka, v. Mishne Tora; 
on Jew and Gentile, 280. 
Yebamoth, Masechta of Nashim, 


Biblical @basiswetor,n eL0syev. 
Special Mishnaic and Tal- 
mudic References. 

Yede Moshe, commentary of 
Maimonides on  Pesachim, 
Bo. 


Yetzer ha-ra, evil inclination, 
AL PATE 


law harmonized | 
with oral, 121, 186; law, rules | 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES 


Yetzer tob, good 
ZY") 

Yoma, Masechta of Moed, Bib- 
lical basis for, 10; Tosaphoth 
on, 67, 296; translations, Latin 
of Palestinian Talmud, 92; 
English of Babylonian Tal- 
mud, 303; of Mishna, 302; 
MSS. of, 299; v. Special Tal- 
mudic References. 

Yom Tov v. Betza. 

Yore Dea, Tur, of R. Jacob, 74; 
commentary on, 75. 


Z 

Zabim, Masechta of Teharoth, 
Biblical basis for, 14. 

Zadok; RK... Tana,;25. 

Zarkes, on R. Eliezer b. Hyrk- 
anos, 287. 

Zebachim, Masechta of 
Kodashim, Biblical basis for, 
12; Latin translation of Baby- 
lonian Talmud, 90; v. Special 
Talmudic References. 

Zebid (b. Oshaya), Amora, 51; 
succeeded by R. Chama, 52, 
294; authorities on, 294. 

Zedaka, 274. 

Zeira, R., Amora, 45; ,Baby- 
lonian, 46; disciple of R. Juda 
b. Jecheskel 46; attended lec- 
tures of R. Elazar b. Pedath, 
46; associated with R. Ame, R. 
Assi, R. Abbahu, 46; his dis- 


inclination, 


ciple, R. Jeremiah, . 48; 
authorities on, 292. 

Zeira v. Zera; Palestinian 
Amora, 292. 

Zerachia Halevi (Maor) R., 


notes accompanying epitome 
OLMRIL AT ce 

Zeraim, Seder of Mishna, 7; 
Masechtoth of, 9; Maimonides’ 
introduction to, 15; Masech- 
toth of, in Palestinian Tal- 
mud, 58; Berachoth, only 
Babylonian Masechta of, 60; 
commentary of Maimonides 
on, 68; commentaries of R. 
Samson on, 69; R. Asher on, 
69, 298; - commentary of 
Syrileio on, 71; commentary of 


INDEX TO SUBJECTS AND NAMES oe 


Elijah b. Jehudah Loeb, on, 
298; commentary of Lunz on, 
298; in Ahabat Zion v’Yeru- 
shalaim, 298; MSS. of, 299. 

Ziegler, I, on Agada, 295. 

ALLYONO Witz, - Onsmeh. 
Hanasi, 289. 

Zipser, on Gamaliel the Elder, 
286. 

Zizith, a Minor Treatise, 296. 

Zuckermandel, revised edition 
of Tosephta of, 17n, 283. 

ZUcotneesassleachers, \22°" cas 
heads of Sanhedrin, 22; suc- 
cession of, 22, 285. 

Zunz, Vortraege of, on Halacha 
and Agada, 57; on Aboth d’ 


Jehuda 


Rabbi Nathan, 638n; on Sop- 
herim, 68n; on Ebel Rabbathi, 
64; on Derech Eretz, 64; on 
Tosaphists, 67n; on Barai- 
tha, 286. 

Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 
of Zunz, on Tosaphist, 67n. 


AULI wo, FOnew hens) OChanalrsD, 
Napacha, 290; on Abba Are- 
Cam 25 1% 


Zutra, Mar, Amora, succeeded 
Ra aCahanamaue Cumbaditha, 
Exilarch, 52; debates R. Ashe, 
202; friend of R. Ashe, 294; 
succeeded by R. Acha b. Raba, 
52, 294; authorities on, 294. 





SPE GUAWIC TB ETGALS 
MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


DEUTERONOMY 

PAGE 
BGR L Loirs erent oy 144 
wml Oitmaa te 124 
DG BAN. GRAS is AL Ae 163 
EXOT face cetera crake 164 
XIV, 22. 207 9 
De Vee ie aaa 9 
VEL een oma tesa es 145 
XVI, S75, L176, 176n 
XVI, 16, 17. 10 
XVIII, = oe. a5 
EXP ote eu roe 158 
Ooo a al Es i 11 
ENON ca Oe LO oa ial 
SD. Gia Sh hs eR a 13D 
SOO A SNE A/a ee LDp 
NOX [emleos sl RFA 
OGD ee 11 
OAT Bead a eg 156 
XXIT,. 9-11. 9 
OG he, A Bae 165 
PRONE 3 Os areits 149 


SOOO. ab Byes: 
MXIT 34.5150, 181 


EXPL Vetere oni hye 118 
LOGIE IS Say ae 1G 
XXIV, 6 156 
CMA Vic a Lec eres tales 11 
RO 4 148 
KACV S10. 10 
XXVI, 1- 11. Pe aie 10 
EXODUS 
NVA We a ee la ye rane Le 
XII, 1-X XIII, 19—18 
oT TSS eee 2, 176n 
A ALTSELG 10 
OCU SG) an: 175, 176 
DA AL Aa jy 
9,00.@ PATE Seucom Maen 119 
0.0. GES AN Ain Sie 144 
20D, @ In gop ea 163 


Balebris tt CeAGL 


9.0. Ee atone 134 


» ee © @ © @ © 


XX129-80%. Lh 134 


Oscik, Vay ayes en EERE 
Od Peeves op 11 
SEN 98 Meni 135n 
Oe aub nla il 
Neel ah wee 161 
XXII, 6-8, 9-12.146 
eK LCs ee 11 
KENT Ob epee, 166 
Rie G- LO aL 
Noah, SP aks wiles 
ONE TM pel en 170 
XXII, 24-26. 11 
5 O.ONN be Ves 121 
OCH. Til 5 eQule 9 
SOME V eT Oar 138 
Ord Bey eile de Ws: 
Ke OT Ge 10 


MOL ely eee 178 
OKIE ABEAEY. 
POO sankey. Laks 


XGA DS ance 
XOXO IT 1 Oe, 163 
EXEX EX SV Uliana ears 178 
ERA yO tna vain ryt 
EZEKIEL 
[XEXUXAV Lie eer 
GENESIS 
ah Mege Mees ake e Wier 279 
SeTiT ALS weet 149 
LEVITICUS 
Let, Cee ere one, 12 
| Ra NE Sane aie See Aa 164 
DRA ey es eee 183) 
Tee ee eta ae hiee 12 


eee ec eo oe we eo wo ow 


eo ree ee we oe oo 


Nova Tw Gn ee 


X XIU, 34-36... 
ALE CAO ee 


roan Bee okt 
SOV ID oT ee 
Mead ae eon 
MBOME ER no ee 


376 

PAGE 

NEHEMIAH 
ROR ae ee 149n 
NUMBERS 
VASE Ee eae eee 20 
VS 62 tea re eee 153 
Viol 2e8 Lee eee intl 
Vil 2-2 eee At 
LXPN 2 res Vl en 145 
SL WL eee es iesue 
DEV ie 20-2. Lees 9 
ABOTH 
Tle 2s he hae, 274 
TSS es tee a 2 
LALO ae tae 279n 
RCE ces eee 2120 
LielOle 2 te ee 2720. 
Pal One ac hae ee 276n 
Tere ene 274n 
| Gstaad ACA ee osha, On vege ha 
DS ae eee 274n 
US Psi Oe ae C2 273n 
Lets seen ee 271n 
ED Relicee ae ae Zion 
LER aera 272n 
Lira Sate 276n 
1 Ot ay Ge ie 270n 
UG OG Weal har Buin 
LRA ee eee 276n 
Lieto eee On 
Len tae ren yee) 
Li, Oe ee Do 
Lijgi0ee ee 274n 
RBs Ci Pten 8 Hien yale 
Liselovaa se cre 279n 
TL eee 2UAn 
TLE eee eae 276n 
DLT See cee 2000 
DLT OMe ere 279n 
TEE ee eee 269n 
Tet Os tk eke 279n 
De A ea AEs ies a che ee 274n 
V M204 ee cee 270n 
Vil aS eerrentercts 278n 
BABA KAMMA 

TO Sivare iene 161 


SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC 


ATAUME, NER 5 2 9 
XEVILL A pale aet 
KV LL 2 eo 


XVII 125 
XL XWRea ethene, 13 
MUXM4s 15a 13 
DO GERE OFS Lo 145 
NOG SING oid 11 


XVI tee 
SOGVILL SOM mle 
LOO aie hese... il 


MISHNAIC 
4G La ee Lelie bo 193 
LETS LO Wal oes: 193 
LV a0 ee ee 193 
BABA METZIA 
LRBtee See 192 
| hoes ha Aaah bis alo 192 
[0 Ee wane, 193 
ELS age O tee 193 
TS Leena ese 193 
TIGR, LB ect eevee. iin 
Ti Ta eee 196 
TVG LA ey sisees cre 194 
cL a er ane 198 
VELL GS eee 194 
TX 1 Bae 156n 
BERACHOTH 
Tyca fine On eee eee 192 
1 Dat eg A 5 194 
MSs deer grit toy 5s 193 
1 Wie: ae Way betes 191 
Li Rie eaten eee 192 
LES Stree Speer: 197 
ELT lee = epee 191 
LV elon eres 194 
VL Sees ma ae 194 
VIED SID ioe 2 
EXE EED ec oaeese 269n 
BETZA 
Vite 2 Set, ane meee eo 
CHAGIGA 
Tee eae ee prem 194 
CHULLIN 
LeU Aa Sie en ees 194 


AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


PAGE 
XXX V)28-249ee 


XXXV, 31s 148 


PROVERBS 
XX XI) 167 ea 


PSALMS 
DO. O.ON05 ABT oie, 3 144 


SAMUEL 
2. LV, Gur sean 149n 


EDUYOTH 


Ve Gl eee 24 
VIII,’ 7... 1238800 


GITTIN 


SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


AVAL MeL. aes 138 
Md et Sold Coca has 192 
RosH HASHANA 
DS ASD Cole eee 196 
SABBATH 
16 the aa 198 
MRR Us peeesteciee rs 198 
Velma to cvavey. oe 198 
SAN HEDRIN 
RS tak CoP dota a 148 
1B de) eel eee ee 122 


ABODA ZARA 


BABYLONIAN 
DAM TY ee Nal ee aie « 226 
DP AE oe Pa ote, ae 
BAY 4 Katee ene 224n 
Green ee ks 244 
ih ee ae ee ee 218 
TRA) cick ey eee 8n 
hike pe eee AUT 
TANS Ae Behe namie ee 150 
ATES by ac bee ee 255 
LO UMMe Roses es) 5 ss 262 
2G ER apt A 205 
CAV ee CRR ING 5... « 205 
ARACHIN 
BABYLONIAN 
Pants OUNCES eee 35n 
BABA BATHRA 
BABYLONIAN 
Ameer Oe es 251 
eet al BA nny eee 244 
Gare seit. - Passa 
OD ime Frise ine + 275n 
 Olpeaer es < epee est « 275n 
146-L7a aye! 
TErd a) Oe ape aie ra 204. 
DADS vo pare Spl aA Iori 7A 
POL oW Gal we area 245 
FATES. J oma, ohne ape 256 
PAY ATL eens Ee 250 
JASE Ww), Ake ble See 67 
AD Ae OAM: « 263 
AE Lier teeee eee ie ts o> ss 250 
AR emer oleueiar ese > 224 


SHEBIITH 


Seo Wee ee 208 
ap Rey area Rea | 199 
(ER oThoee ek ie ye uh 
Fhe} 6s; See tere ES, Rae DAZ. 
OS amit yce th rarer: 208 
LOG site o5. CG Seer 226 
LO SMEG or eater oe 208 
BPRS Ph eee Fe ab teme 35n 
BRYN Ns mi oes 238 
TAG ae ate each: 205 
T(r 59 
BABA KAMMA 
BABYLONIAN 
DEO ee 5 SAE 206 
3 eo oe ANA ay ag 226 
HEN Oar Sc 238 
Ramet a DOM Zo i 
8 at cree ne 210 
O ater A! Gens 226 
OD Ernst eee 220 
LOA eee: 296,200 
1S Mana) Cae ee, 223 
1B eee: Seen 204 
iA see eee Se 228 
LA er ee 256 
BY Na Dae 
TS baat to 249 
LOS Meee wer oe, 244 
PAN Ser pe RE 226 
DO AM re ey kere 226 
DOAN Oss beeen Das 
D2 OA ea 253 
23 Dawes eat: mes tees 21€ 
Da aeRT Eas aueay as 244 
Qa a ssn 151 
VALET Ws pte eure hertes 207 


TAANITH 
Lg hp a Let ena eee Ce ty: 193 
10 GA Se ee bee 198 

YY ADAYIM 
Leos case ns 13 
TAR Oe sents eta 309 
EGOS Cae tse Fe 140 

YEBAMOTH 
MB he So fuphiie earls 195 
OT tae erect nee 246 
PATEK, hte dy ane cents 205 
PARA Oy ape Soe Maa NR 200 
DO DIRT ee 227 
29 Dee ee 23 
S OAM aes seet 203 
Sw LE & alee ete 240 
Bam s ateras oa) 203 
SQD ea ene OV? 
at: eed gi sah rae 5 Pike 203 
SODA AAO ae 220 
Sb Deine meee 206 
SCO NIA A Ae sera 228 
YUE es SA OMe 226 
OSTA Me per hee 231 
TS ary rem Nowe ete 242 
SER ba gts ot or Aeey ea 214 
CBRE Vil ee dy Raed a ee 241 
AS yrs iets Lite, Parad 
AS yma wee ces a 24? 
ATTY met nar uta ects 206 
HAT o\ae iniiies evi Neee 2 aa 214 
AS Dies ter han tne 226 
CS yee heen Ne te 250 
als; (Chee aa he 247 
So be ae ea 230 
BONDS tres Aon. tao 298 
Vs an On tee 196 
EP ee 262 
SLAM eee 215 
CGlapesa ce ea ae 2 
GLABRA aah ia wee) 220 
GLAM A 4 epee 263 
62th rere eee 167n 
SYA # heee-pee ae Seu eee 234 
G4 Dee Oo otalaein: 168 
GAD Mee edeiaie es 184n 


O77 


378 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


TIA TR tee eee 155 DOD heehee. eee Deh BERACHOTH, 
PBS eA WS nr ores 262 OS break we ete 952 BABYLONIAN 
refi: fe Ra AA Gath 168 OO beet Here ee ae ee 296 
LOA WN crane BAU AMg oan hin Sd ie 2501 8 he ae Ng 
LUG REC eee 155n 31a-b Waele par ae 1296h Get eee 
ear FA SEO is Tan 213.1 Sy ae 
BaBA METZIA Pd an Mire Miaka 2067 obs nee ee 251, 252 
BAPYLONIAN DOAge arenes On). +a) at ae 242 
Ee eh teen Shia ciel Bh resi 996.9 Ui8b.- kee 247 
Pek a. olen 203 SoD eee Cass wait 4a! eee 225 
Beene We via all Det aod ev ok B05 Abi ys eee 238 
as ated reed an 240 SAA Wire, kere hose o 250 AD OO ors pee 239 
DAM mene hae He 439 Md belay earn 199°) 8h 4b 5 ee 248 
oe Lana a fay SA a) 253 Oy aa ee eee 205 Da) 4 Uh eee 225 
Site ene) Ob OW Roa Manor: Serene 196) Wa ee ee 225 
BS aces teare ete eae 182 BO aa be 201, 226 Sa) ce eee 277n 
Did tions teed 247 SSbi hak eee 233 Bien Caer 224n 
Bb rokes cals kak 252 AQ Dae ome 203 Sb ee hee AI 
Speen aamakrere ee 256 AO Diy sc 7a cence 219 Dal. sence ae een 226 
Ger atts arate 223 Aap SPP ote Meee icdcs. 199 
Chueitatauee BAD ET Bee opeMiaats Br) Peal 229 
Rees weet sles ste PALS eG Reon NG ane ts an LOB eee 928 
at AB ANN) leper 273n ; 
ee rnp mete Avena Lg 259 Noy. | Ree hy 
8a DE Marek te 260 48a Beati eved eee Re 273n 12 eo, a 
Sa ie SAT) [Boa tee ee 240 Va ete ae are 
iran octet DOD oat 315 by Meh eo hk ape ior Sea 9941 
ft Geta ae ea ame 228 Bose Mereside, te Zio 13a. cee 206 
AT Pity Pad Ree ace 240 59a Rakin! Coe Mette rake Me 276n 13a hie: 951 “O59 
tlh Ws a ke gh ee end 2AT 60b aie joniethe ete tance 203 13 hal ie Oa : 259 
Oates og ee et eee 254 GC 2a gaye ames 2b ie SA ae 260 
fad Oe DHT AEC DAW hae 213 i Bio a 
(Come yr la Tw in eet 231, 236 a ee ti 
Frey h ubaaneyaes DAT NER ta Watney Mane 94g 1ba .....e eee 197 
TEE cated ys DADL aw Gants amie O77n Lda .-+---- ee 202 
Tih a nad DSO MSSh i uk anes 123n 158 ..--.- eee 216 
Pera Pen are D1 Oda kes) came 213 dab ........ 197 
TEE opto atelain) DOB TOLD plat eee 134 db .......... 230 
Tey ee ome Dain’ O15 a O4b Lay ee 147 16a .......... 222 
Oa nee Whee TRO na wOn ae.) emer 193) 10D oe ee 259 
DOA AEC, Wea Pee 199 pwMeOOa ee tase 913) h(a eee 277M 
Dane (eae DAD raw O@ay men ee PAVE MESA OB cuseier os 206 
Lake: Mele DAB el They i eg iee Sdn gt (Oa iecete tee 215 
OT an) tine keene BON Del Loa wmieg 2119) LTDA. even 218 
Daas ae ae 232 1Sb ae Cee 923 
Tene aen sie 233 BECHAROTH, 19a oe ee 180 
OD strane Wt weit 205 BABYLONIAN 20b2) Jo ee 206 
Doane een wee) PAW Se ek ded sc 05 D1 lees Ub iane eae 209 
Oras a eae DOO NA ase h wal ween 999. tes 20 ba nen aoe 250 
Dba sie Si vlMe iene ORO Sa yen gin rey DOSu S21 awe ae 258 
Sib ee a bueae DAG ana Satan eee eae L700 22a eee 64 
OG b ie Mae bee DOB wy Dba Oren tenn 30 80) 228 lal en ae 235 


Dipy eee ae DAT fe 8a ae ee DEO MMO Te time tw. 252 
ray Nia Mens DBT FE Shy eee paren et D5 O MSS bi aha vena Re 170n 
PTs 0 hee DATA On mUeEe se Dalit ten te A Wk 127 
Dene 2h 1 Ob2 25S we laeee fe de ep DOTemn Uda 273n 
D7 Ate ere ae OPA Ws telat) ela te er aad DOD TRMROLAMS. oh eka & 279n 
cael. ane eae DOO LN ObAne capt e ale Ae SAGA a ek eA 192 
iby Gente eaaeae Dini ie ORNCN hak aeeeel eae DAO Og ater 1a end toe 180 
Doom eaten aie OS RUEMEN | letra t tty foe DS 4s awe Obie an ee 218 
DS away enue ne SAG NETL Sat nee DBO ait Lobe eee nee 138 
DOM ae LOSA  Saeet  aaege ty SC0RTML Ia ee 240 
PLIE\. abt aan tenn DI oor Shee verte oe SOW 304 cee te oe oe 245 
SObME eee PAN MALLE A tat nemeba icia Macmter 202 
EP eed eam DOI) VL SAeen ro nue 254 ERUBIN, 
eh RE rd ini en DiDiE Mec aereegin janie ce: 214 BABYLONIAN 
CON. Ute D0? Mer Po aete pe eked ae 217 ; 
BAR kee DSM AL OOM tae ae ia rs a ea ase 
AY" @hecpe, coke kee ee 204 DO DBE Ee ee 40n pias CMe eas eG 149 
BR Aaadete ahs Pe 182 GHD iy ae wut mee 213 [Saree Meee ney ARO 
BSL es Pa PANE crny ei Me Mahe ee 196 9575 SPO ah od 
BOD wie. on 192 GARG faerie ae 259 Dit Moe ca eee 168 
Mas) i ee 225 Se Mea nE 43n 
AU) EMER Ee sea 20S CHAGIGA, aes LE 175n 
AOD on 223 BABYLONIAN Set ras G 945 
a he ol 217 2 came) oan ey Tey tt 204 SFO wana AOD 278 
da ai eh tes 149 CValeaiiclionehowel ovens n 
BUI: 72ers See eee WANE) Wie pie) TON x Maiowaeia st 62b 6n 
AA Mee cree 123n ae See ore ibcaToye nee Fai ee a 
AREY ls, 5 teepegee 224 bet ote ale estat GITTIN, 
AW GN i4 eae ae 205 7S: a a 229 BABYLONIAN 
AGES ca Ble aiaeden tees 206 CHULLIN, DE Ne RRA ee 3 | 226 
LED ETL MY ed 236 Sgn aN Se A Near cA 964 
ANN AY. Dialed Og 228 2a 197 ob 932 
2 rae NAN Abe iieae a gS ehed COME (Qe s Mr takes a co? 
ATb SMT aioe joie Se lame 209 6a Su Miele: 117 8a ah eh Ae eT LO 258 
ATD .......05. LOM Valin more ta die SHSM sb eure oe 240 
50a ...... AURA 1s CSI Seba bel ae a) Oo Ih aA Ty went ena a 238 
DO AGERE eae ue IE ee ithe noe 197 AN pte Mate an at rae 9243 
HO0AS 5.22.5. CA OMIT SMe COTE pee Titibe Gavel ey tone eee 250 
50a ......--5. AA 1 Shee Seale TOTMURE Oa le noe ue 240 
52b .......0e. 202 page 1 Batwing TO TMG ODM es 213 
538b .......4-. AONE TO au uel ats Histiy KOE G | Wet ea eee 203 
54a-64ar ...... Dame OS tay NT Dao Mamet anniyins eran 259 
5) LO ak Ske kee (OCR LOD Lease 209 
6lb .......... LOTR) ee Re Sal) Bl Maal Die ee 276n 
Bact 1D DSc Cees DOOWMRT bias sence tee ae 240 
PALESTINIAN A GAMMA Chee, 224 Piney sees es eee. 179n 
i Lites OE. abide ae tag toe OL OO Ate oe kee 257 
: Glade eee te We it ROL pL eaee week 223 
BETZA, Bpebn Le ee Ree LAT Sher eae 226 
BABYLONIAN GhDeee wie iu TOOrieeed So Dias eta ta a 229 
BP io ane eee DS00F ech bade tae ae HGEi nde 8) Oath LeU eee Np OBA 
Hehe heen. SAGA GGA MULL eee OQUIMEL Haat te ie: 211 


380 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


LOD ny ere 226 HORAYOTH, 7a VS) ee 250 
LAM Geet eee Don BABYLONIAN eat Pr a eee 256 
LU ee een DOG Ma Oa Wes eee 126n a eee eee 258 
BEST dys Wee eed DOH wane Oana eee 126n3 2b eee 242, 245 
TO a See ue ee 204 begs eee 210 
Saye eae 126n KETHUBOTH, Fie alee ihe? 123n 
obama eae 246 re souhea : een 245 
21b Vb wey Olan > 914 2a sists: ene a: eee. elairs 245 toa) aolel ene ees Cares 230 
OO Sa toe. 9203 SWE ENT eee © ag iT L2ebe Ue eee 250 
SDs mate ee 913 Py res Dln BOR ae bere 205 Laie tty eee 255 
5d Sas el hea SORT CO eee rte 211) © 14 200 
PY ahd ih dl ee 915 OSA rg Poe eae 64 L7i a eee 126n 
Sayeumeltoa smite Brau SNL Pen eek 906) 18a ee 126n 
Sis ee ious Aca gee eae O1f Ol h e 163n 
Sine Bey a las Bate 941 OLR a eee 184 
SoM ehh eH AG bea ation eer 1802 7220 ee 200 
Ses cares HOamianiota ee PAR = I aha 160, 161 
28b ...--+-++: 249 BeiS Same eet attamee Pay fe yo en 198, 199 
BAS 1 cliche ea 249 sc 5 Shien ee ee Dette PAY apg ee a 209 
32b-38a ...... 263 G6 Ta ties DUS ie ay a ee ee 222 
Bo ae ayer 258 a.m Tlaee ee eee 919M 00a tne 240 
Si ae ake, 5Oni. Thame ee 18S 2 090a eee eee 272 
SAD Mw bike eee 208 BO at Tha. eae eee 199 29a-b 276n 
yea) See bat be 951 G ia Fa ee See, 206 30b38 2 eee 119 
Se he eee See kee O51 1032) eee 126n= 250 be ee ee 270n 
Slave 2 ae 119 
STE hoe KHERITHOTH 32a. Se 254 
Bi abd ac oe 249 BABYLONIAN 5An is eee 194 
am hea Mea 155 D9 WES a ae 171in 348) — We. eee 213 
PA ORC von iF 242 
Wiiiver ius Bey aioe ea, Oy ae 1995).. (35a, eee 24 
; Bay eee ee ba 1501 po ase oe coe 153 
43b BL ere ER es 942n 11b al bed nae 192 41b i tear ee 125 
os 245 Aan Renae 127n 
ADAM ci aicks iaiaits 244 KIDDUSHIN AD at ORE NI aRe 296 
SBE LY guaran ras 242 BABYLONIAN 14) eee 242 
boavenue eee OB ALAM i Pat peer: heen 140 bea ba eee 291 
BB bp Shae sere Si a Wee Pee eat hoy 207% ACen 204 
Glave haere SWishi: Cede yariaecences.c 2051. wd Obie ae 64 
CAh re aie 917 ei pare keteeteenes 204 50a as wacom 2 lah 
A+ tin Le eee 218 Bodin s orttas Sete 249 DO Deion elenare gone 212 
ped une ence 1800) 9) b2aci ee eee 50 
art Oe Se bite ae SA0H, VASO ne ete 203 
eee Fea ee) dul Rive coe 223 Od eles So ene 203 
ee ene an ee Ay eee 350; Ob ee eee 207 
Abe | laren aha S0iee 1 60a eee 226 
(CC AD TUES piste get ae th tele 155 60K ee en P11 
TA veer ee eee DIL SBE ia pe ee ON eee 54049 G0b wee ees 221 
TAD Mors ua 22 ISS Faulk freer ee DATE G 1 ade een are 216 
HRCEY Yeo Ge ASS 203 RL RRA ree Ae 182 63408) ene 192 
Gam da tay ee QL Mee baht eee O57 64a ee ee 126n 


SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 381 


GENS de ee 218 MENACHOTH PESACHIM 

DUR ae) chabert Has BABYLONIAN BABYLONIAN 
hold iio ae Pays Salah easel ae Cee gap 1638n OE eal VALS Leh 198 
69a pie Fel Werte; 6. .6 eis, 208 66a SPicloh's Veuelemed olLets 176n 2a-3a ere ee 249 
76 Na oul ee A 2D5 Ae Paste belt at Sue AE 154 Ata Time oY 244 
ee DVM soe tet. 293 Fi ey oir rd Seat dane Zino a een 920 
(fal thc ee eee 196 NGAe eek het ee 159 A Se DAA 
eA ROPER rie eae 1 ODT ear ie eee 126n 
MACCOTH Sia oy ey A ee es 245 So eee eens: O57 
BABYLONIAN 110a .......-ee 61 ey 5 Tian Rua 260 
OA el > i Aan By Sere Oe 126n MorpD KATON 5 Dates vee nee Sin 

A a 9 ee Low BABYLONIAN DDR ee ke e's ye 
ANY 1s) en gee 240 CATR Roy faieak dehy ae a 253 ee Wee eae 256 
aie | Soy ae ist Aa gy “a hrah Matbeneeee 263 Ob .-.-eeeeeeee 178 
AM Sear LG ATR amr ran 180 7A eee eee eee 250 
BD meta cate fied. sDeASyo UU Ig A hy see ee De OMe desiree: 259 
Ais Ce ane US BM amr cet 214. 8A eee reese eee 204 
GO mM e oie + - 2b lemme meee Nee 920 DA verse renee es 206 
Teoh So St ee Ae ae OTe SO Oe eee es 44n EY ith Ak iy Ola ee 250 
Py ye ed sch ee 186 19b-20a 297 ODMR rie arc 240 
iy) |: ape, oleae Peal EOP] vy) ena ecitoe 227 10b ......-+ee. 245 
STs Sica 29? CEA) Ear een 64 VD aeea ata nee os 243 
iON ey A et eee 175 TL Dakatrc ites te ena. 219 
TODA oes. os 249 NAZIR LE Dieta ce ctarsceae oe 221 
1a oy a 257 BABYLONIAN LOSE ere aes 22o 
EW ee) ee ee 934 CE acne Ai Ar EOeee 209 LObae Oe eee 249 
| WEES ee a a 920 A mee eon ave tee 218 Nd oy ee oe 240 
TOR ns we 66 Sy ES Se 200 TO Beare eines: 259 
POL MN eo ke 939 Po Sa eee Aig oe 206 DADiats.. aaa 209 
ihc, | Liey ee aE O51 151 nd een mille? Botan LG Pre 22 Deen eee ee 124 
{lh hed EAI Lee pelt oy Ac ye 

SA Sa eae on ay 136 DOAREA aie. acti 
eh at GO lk, Boeing § 217 PATA We Ae cia ee eg 221 
EE Petey sce 5 eiteae Whas 256 
AMEE ate Ce Siok 201 NEDARIM 99a OBI 
TIEN. © ‘ohak Sih tee he 238 BABYLONIAN 99a-29b Se ates aoe 933 
DAME es ces 243 AT yee =: Seer tee 159 30a poe Tog 997 
21S. | bse Se 210 Dea ces 234 Ary ee ae 296 
Lbad | ec eek. POD Bre. crete 251 30h je Pa ae 939 
[oes DOOMMIE OAC eer acc: 2d (eigenen, pete ena a8 
TOD ee ee ees 197 DO Dame URE As 66 814 234 
LODE RR eee 203 25b-27a 263 TORNCeI phy O57 
Dh ae eae 209 ZOE mE ee cues § 276n Be 126n 
HIG Bak oe Ae ee 236 bey Ob! 5 uke: ir the cree 238 SAND AUER N He lace. 939 
Du hes Rte eee 216 AD a eee ek pista POM 19h is en Ek GO 
TIEN in ane er Ghia Sade ee 203 De ice oaeeaten 120 
PON CE Sa 201 NIDDA Ab ee eee 180 
BABYLONIAN AOD RNC Croce. 206 
MEILA 1Ghwiee ee ee DOT EE. Chae eee 217 
BABYLONIAN TOM ey a 15 lege dG baste eee. 253 


382 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


AOD eit ote es 218 By te aa eae eee 256 SABBATH 
Bb Aha ee 208 Aha ON eek ee vee, 255 PALESTINIAN 
515] sah aD ia aa PAIVAS) nal Os ly nae aR Er ak 245. UN T0200 64 
DTA vse eee ees UT Ns Wr oe bene yb 260. XLS 289 
2) Ce 2B Bar Gai teeht Gabeata 250 
OAAAE Se el as teie es 226 6a 258 SANHEDRIN 
Le Oa at ne AN hen rae BABYLONIAN 
Ta, Sue ak ee D0 4ge ae Uneaten eens abe re mare oe 
SGA Me bre ee 186 9b eras eek ce 4 ee 234 3b SLL. ES ae aa 255 
5 eater yy tc aaeevta 199 LOD te ts ees 276n The ee 136 
GOB wea 17ST LL ieee neater a4T ia eee O55 
Lea ARs loth Metabo mens 85n 11b COC RICIIC I CHIC E) 257 6a Te a oe ae 927 
Tae eh te nek OT TL on week ee 250” lee iy ee alee 
7 Oa atacis etenetys 276n ae A Ser, De ON a Sail. 14 Of ae 246 
Che tereren ror Ob aka eee 240 
i eanemere Doe: ee tebe nas 247 1 Cte oe eee 148 
Vr ee FETA Ctl Uh sear Be 258 hol Oawhi ace ee 245 
, DA eee Ree PAV I Es) spam eernale 217 
RosH HASHANA DAD Bac si eee 224 L Tiki 141 
BABYLONIAN DAS) eRe ene aele PS D7 Gh Diet See ee 249 
AEN es Cabal HN ae 199 OS me viaite, Laat weed O7OT. LL SD Bee ieee 209 
2) Be pects Popa tha tee ni DO eels eae wl: 226 aoe s Lslge moe Role ae a 
Pisdictie eater award fave A etal helisnacte teens n 
Rie ence tag Sone een Soa 334) rn 217 
TRAUG eure eee S55 D0. 1 ea pear ie mene gan) 28a eee 229 
Tiaee eee ee 260) ies ae en gieal YY ue Cy ee 5 3n 
[Shae coe Dah rasetibede tae oar OSS SAat | ee 223 
That ate bas 935  - B9A_ weer eee 2185. 4b e ee 249 
{Ober he ee 957 41a ........0-. 199 2 OF ven yee 199 
DO baie aie oe O23 SOA asta a dale = PAL GI UE BOA ee ne). 231 
ON EN Mabe apne 1.99) furs 0 aiken oe vere 24275) | 2hg 58.0 et ee 231 
PLY Psa che ey tae PA sy 3) Peete Iris GI be Lisi oa ee eee 50n 
DD aye teen cna ean DUG ie Oi B= 1c fee oe ene 209 OV nie ne eee 226 
OD ene hand one {OO O2Di agi ee 2D) 1 OV aus ee 233 
DO me ctw ens 25 ty Od emia. ew ieatees 1220 8 O7 Rte es 234 
OG again were eke 9165.9 Gdare en ee 2700. OT pee |e eee 118 
Take we Vener O15 COATT kuin. ty peer 10(n) 22h) eae 224 
OSA ae erage PASS sh) 9 AUEE SS BS cles L720) | OShee eee 226 
SOD ae ee ae 19S eos ie ta ae sees De eR nm a To 179n 
Se ty Mas Oy LOG MIE OO Uae triers ante: Ald OG ae een 229 
SONA hw vam PAINE ie es Ut sie aang ta 208 20S 0b une eee 240 
BON a iT one een D1 OM ROAD seinen etn 214i Fae ye eee 191 
18 abd edie aet tee 196 104a .......... 2130s 2 89a vas. ee 239 
Pa vie. cia 287 Bey Any ee 915 
SABBATH 1485 et tee 64 tS Sb eee 126n 
BABYLONIAN tPA Bie B's be Hx 212 SAD ee eee 154 
DA inte Me dean LE DOT BL Od ate weer cramenras 151 54° Ree eae 233 
brea at eee 20 TS Zaateee 136, 217 Sh bt ge beeen 172n 
Sa chs eee ne 193 LLOQ wa ee: 35 36a Soha ee 122 


SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 383 


OME ov sis sah 126n SUCCAH LS Ueerean eaneeh dices 193 
AAA) EO ears 199 BABYLONIAN Bomar vey ae Zt 
BA Ey a As Soe ars pA ey AR Re PO) eee 249 DANG ate | Lieaten 123n 
TEE Aon ae ee 12605 Psy ee ie eter cies 249 Ud’ TE ae 255 
ERD) i i ea 260 aye Soa ae Ne 292 DAG Men aorta fa 298 
G2 ite. LOZ FES Rate Pepe: 224 VY Sh ee Seat Ale 
Ga ate ta et as TZON AR Rh ater kee 234 Pas fetes al eee 251 
i Cea LOOSE Aneel alk co BE heats ta atey aa 218 
GOAME evar 203 Taya de edn eee teens 240 OO ata witness 199 
BOAR alias ss 205 Se Nine ee ee P11 SOAR Ba creme < 248 
Gl DINE gee acs ote s 170 DOG tn OUT) aaa ete ets 5 ee 218 
GUD Mert ore hs UOT CoG n muna hem es 209 AGA Pee eee ead « slay, 
Ges), hate a Rear 20% 59 5 errant ney, 186 Bt) iy oaeseseee eee hake Pepe 
(BEN oS aan ea iper 206 Sa ae ae) REN at: 205 Dons haa cea: 212 
INGE SS Ss eRe 33 Piety, Ades piel ess 258 boa. Meee 250 
TES Ra Bion 98h StF HEYA we este ah ati 276n 
pois Ty bu. Aa © gen tae 219 Bae ee ae 185 UAE We ree is ener 278n 
ODM eee tsk rtat 204 AC ik cole re cane 231 63a-b Bi Peon 
oat: Wong os uh Manmade ae tok eyed ei ae en wees 126n 
ne AN AC tr, AD Pan 2738n TAANITH LA Clercta nate ae ee 126n 
BABYLONIAN TAU ae hah Bee ins 
S HEBUOTH PEC aa aa aad 202 T6a ........+ 257 
BABYLONIAN Ohare es. (aac nS PY Wiles edt keh AA EN aess MRR 151 
Ula) os Ec ae TOOT ee Di. eae ieee 215 ADM Mls Shateteetis 208 
AW * oa a eee LON Tie bee ere ers: cis 228 LS Diners ate cae urea. 205 
Ab PSA del SATA Rae Mele: SAG MRL Sadho ae ie 218 
PMP Mees x! 45 53 Wee Say GENE ee Peal lei 229 LOO a eee ie eerie 218 
DAMME ac Nil: sos ss 207 
Brameries vices.) saa) WE AOE Re ace Ae eo 240 YOMA 
IRS 0 | tal eg mee 257 ae ce Baga ey BABYLONIAN 
HO Desert fo la> 233 co Ea Cr LE eh tometer te 20 
tome te. 226 22b sss MECN a Seta 2760 
TAS yA ae tok PAV) oA a es Nice LO OMe thane 251 
25a ose eee 234 Bye ash tae Ria rte: 243 
(gs aaa gs 7 URES 8 ee ae 538 
RECO ew snes catia 466 185 Feet SIE ernie 4AM tals 252, 253 
26D 6... eee 180 Tey tis wae Cee ES GDetrer steer 232 
PAO. etn iene ee 211 TENN ca etc en w6b-7b 283 
2 PEAY ROOT iat ea haa Sei Abed «heel 259 
Bla .......eeee 181 YEBAMOTH deta eee oer 208 
SPAN ea eer ecg 212 BABYLONIAN Dd treme i ait 205 
BTb .....-.---. LBD pep ate Sac eenta DOS MMMELAD He henyae ete 215 
BALDY wate as PARISH ANP ak oe ane DAG eae 1B agtien ve urine ot 252 
ABA .o. secre es 10 Ted ameter it. 1S MES TOMOL OAR ees Obani ee 247 
A8b ........45: LOSBrir Garter tics PAO Many | Gadi NS Vs Ban: 221 
TL Ateay ees eon areas PTR EOD SE aa es a atekartes 234 
SOTA THR Mos TOO PMD 1h MN Rg cr eas 223 
BABYLONIAN Eo eke 2B Oe MEO Di cde ai aces 274n 
DAD rere sss ie 57 Ld eaters cn take. eZ d DO ie.tesae sdetetaiae 252 
PAREN“ One are 21 DY pe La ate el cienae os 256 VAG) a Sarar hens Wa 229 


384 SPECIAL BIBLICAL, MISHNAIC AND TALMUDIC REFERENCES 


RAN bate atc eh ae DBR RY al eae 952° 1990). ee 255 
STB aaa Ree DUG) SR5b chk wale 125 (1345 ee 252 
40 2 Mite 202, 200 shh] Sb ate eeu Ss re se 250 S4a°.), ee 164n 
EWA Ee ee ae DAA EES 5 ae eee 278n 

count a iene 255 Wain a 
OT bee hore 209 ZEBACHIM Ae i ae 

G9b ee woe 269n BABYLONIAN 49biin 3. Pee 242 
Tf Sen Ra De ay 144 OD kero eee 260 SDD) oe ayaa 199 


INDEX OF EXPLAINE 


D TECHNICAL TERMS 


PHRASES. 

Page. Page. 
217.2382 . J oSay5 se 
210 ; xmim23 256 
157 . ; oN 2 204 
159 3 faba poiay ain) pa! 244 
244 . . Nya 292 
244 : : mg ya 230 
202 s . : nDow 7 244 
253 ~ wot nnd sndya 239 
210 : : mona 259 
245 MOws WIN ya An. 259 
227 . MD NP NwDIN NID 242 
223 : ; . NDI miki 
143 . : my nN 229 
249 : : no i bheb 200.204 
148 : , wey yee 257 
252 . : NA7DN ONT 827 
251 son won xdboNt 125 
252 : NYT NPD ONT 218 
225 . © WIN MONI 256 
250 “ ; 26 TRON 228 
174 : WV sad ass 240 
132 A a] Anes 9209 
181 2 NINNI PIN AN WN 252 
254 ° mnt 257 
134 yay pan sad 240 
249 ° ° A eiyyehben| 264 
197 e ; tal iat 205 
947.252 . : SOI XPT 213 
238 emda wi ad aps 185 
118 : ‘ » aay 223 

229 
g ot 210 
ae ae SD NEW NT ra haat 

224,225 
226 4 noy one Nn eh 
233 A a SND ONT aa 
258 NIPNID NT NNTID NN 
203.257 . : . 90 Nn 
132 : Ay heat evsete 197 
257 NINN 9D WONT NI 90°.249 


385 


AND 
oN 
° meas hs 
® ° SVAN 


NDI IN 

sobwa mis ts 
WIAX VDT WINN OS 
VERE teas 

NON MYDS 

Hop eas had. vaya hots: 
NS IND ODI ON 
oN OARS 

° MRL NeIS 

=) SANT NIN 

: » NIDDN 
SENELO RNS 
2 NIT) UDR 

ST YO PWIA PN 


mpl 

WIBNDD SIDS 
MATS 

° : xox 


b NN NON 
py asd xox 


porns xavb xa xbs 


~ Nmap wbx 
: any xbx 


. » xpdx 

NON 

nary xapod ox 

“1 TOR 

NIN WD JIN AN 

z OE 

3 ase ssimixs 

! . Dns 

‘ 123 DNS 
lice 

° - sialipnyal 

we MtorDy NDA 


386 


Page, 
240 

213 

259 

218 

218 

225 

227 

247 

218 

212 
215.222 
147 

239 

213 

201 
238.256 


206 
157 
147 
196 
235 
182 
209 214 
193.247 
206.250 
137 
192 
143 
246 
1b8 


215 
200 
232 
163 
164 
166 
167 
256 
219 


: NON 3) 
ein DDD 
; . yoyn) 


© dS md) 
exmapo bay 
. DwE I wY) 
. OTIDN wD) 
. NINN 


: ‘5 93D) 
é . yy 
: m0 
. §D{TIN aw 


eet 
~ (xa) xin 


» Sond adonyw som 


e 


° S1720N 


opal 


NDS NNT 
BIS WEP POG 


AND WAY NT 
ord Jy pvt 


VON IN WS TW 


: man 
» spn) Non 
. Siebel 
ee SENDS 
a apes Tabieh pl 

pan 


. wpnn yo ono sb) 


. aim 
: wee NY? 


ees 


LANDY. IND 
ea aes 


soda xd .xa 55 


St obadaee 
é pray bs 
© 555) pies bb5 
prt Nop xbb5 
‘ m5 sebs 
. aod xyenes 


—EEeeeeeeeeeSSSFSSSSSFMSseF = ae 





Page. 


242 
211 
238 
238 


207.208 


216 


200.242 
152.250 
200.241.257 


207 
198 
258 


247.252 


209 
56 

123 
243 
160 


212.25 


199 
258 
202 


235 
204 
204 
231 
260 
225 
209 
2138 
254 
225 
240 
245 
205 
260 
214 
205 
233 
221 


Ieee 


e 


° 


° 


INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 


PID) DN NIN 
° NON AA 
° ena WwW 
° - AY 
2 S94. 54 
« NDP NIN 
° ty Bebe L be: 
wn 

IMPDY °&D3 NSA 
“99 NID NIA 
WIN KIN 
NNW 957 
NaDNOD °D3s"Sn 
IONP Dn 

nbn 


yon AWS Dbz 
[2x7 pd NMA 


maw mMwn ayn 


DAT AD KnvnT 


’ WSS OnAA 
e « -NOT...ONnA 
NP ON 


el 


Moy sry 

. AON ON 
-qnyt xpdp oxy 
: TPN 
: » OND NY 
: ND MN 
: 6D bey 
NDR) 
NTN Day 
‘ MD DN 
VON OX? 

25 ssn ox 
NDI 

» xpd 

xem maps 
somite? sw) 


e 


cman xnsday 


- sunt pn 
han am 


Page. 
159 

242 

218 

151 
191.217 
260 

244 

258 

250 

258 

224 

259 

256 
206.249 
132 

247 

200 

243 

20% 

195 

208 

200 
201.2388 
255 
247.252 
193 

214 

192 

193 
222.241 
220 

255 


182 
247 
234 
249 
193.248 
132 
243 
233 
192 


INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 387 


: wD AD 
: qwb) nD 
eno wn nabmy 
; . TDOBW 

~ npn 
» PO RDND 
: WIN 


- RMR TD 
- mat 


4 2 DID 
: . xo 
: NID 
: MID YD 
: ban 
: spon 


nd NODN NID 
~ SD on NID 
. wn ow 
» mMOYADT ID 
mynd xmD 


IND 30 
; . $930 
s Sop 53 
: m3 SDB 
; NINDY 
: . mwyp 
. nod nvyn 
; NYY 


: IND) NW 
4) Si ahazrebiete: 
Inn NNN 


; md HYpnD 
eat 

._ op 
; ope IMD 
» OND NY 
; . yop? 
; » NTDD 
: . PTD 
. ND AND 
° NNMY'D YO 
NE'D 


Page. 
235 
224 
160 
226 
196 
196 
260 


200.210. 243 


239 
224 
194 
219 
233 


208.217.235 


234 
234 
197 
199 
244 


218 


195 
200.243 


198 
24u 

232 

201 

249 

199 

199 
199.228 
199.210 
142 

208 
213.217 
205 

122 

123 

118 
244 
210 
157 


‘ MOND 
' MON ND 
» AAPA Nd 

TOMS WIWDD IND 
» WANN 

SOND Nya Nd 
snys xpbp xd 
xony xb 

‘ rye xd 
ww xd 

2p NN 

: pan xd 
: mops 
» rps 
» own xpos 
mS xy yon xpos 


: nonnod 

xnzda ons 
A) Npa wns 
: son 
» sr wind 
‘ pbyy5 


ND 
spr NON ND 
’ WY5 WY 

NOY WH 

é tad ND 
sD" 15 IS 

» POW We! 
; IONP IND 
» PP yowyp wy 
‘ 32D (Ns 
. SON Iw ND 
» NY NOW ND 
ma AD 
NATIT 

nw 

mbm mK yap 
; . nD 
NONI IND 

. SnD ...nD 


388 


Page. 


206.249 . . 


206 
224 
241 
241 
160 
175 
252 : 
216 
193.261 
233 

214 : 
247 

132 
228.233.241.254 . 
243 


245 : 

239 

238 

220.221 . 

220 . 

202 

195 

191 

235.257. 

222 : 

221 : 

222.229 . . 
22.230 4 . 

221 : 

220.228 

222 ° 

220 ° 

236 ’ , 


MIND POW 
MIND NYOw 


SNOW KXNYOY 


RIIY 
XPT RIIY 


SMX3 Dyan DDND Sw 
Mer Owns Dandy 


WEY 


om ooxp vey 


xno xdpw 
pew xn 

» enon 
yon 

mi nonn 
rnorn 
aay 
Nn 

oF PIN 
anon 


; : Non 
(JS) S13 NN 


NP NDT SON 
“S27 NIN 

NOP NON 

NT NON 

maa wn 

NN 

997 19) NIN 
TMD kN 
son 

xDIN 


nt ad soon 


(ann) yan 
- oynon 


| Page. 
etl 
209.238 
210 
177 
191 
217 
132 


242 
186.254 
193 
255 
242 
245 
117 
209 
210 
207 
160 
211 
212 
209 
239 
| 180 
124 183 
240 
207 
192 
258 


241.257 
246 
246 


INDEX OF TECHNICAL TERMS AND PHRASES. 


m5 NDR NBD 
snyt xpbo 

NON Joy xpdo 
“19D 

: . pno 
opsp xboxo sy 
NTT SID Y 


. i—.d 


» Npyve 

NINH 

. osmnbp 

a hie) 

(P7515) Prp 

NTO NAD DWE 
NIPT MOWD wD 


 ND'RD 
-, (5) rows 
w3D"D) 2 nine 
. yaw mw sy 
; ND 
. : oben ta ya 


9M) DDE ND 
Se PN WID 
: spim 5p 
Diy) V7 
mon 

NMI 

: nw 
NENDD NOM 


SO ets 


(ONT) XDA Nw 
, m5 ynbw 
; pn inby 


a 


KEY TO THE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TALMUD 
AND ITS COMMENTARIES. 


OYY NS opr 
aby ax oye 
DB Sy ry opp 

1p Spay .o“pyN 


sonar .n/aN 
oN ODN 
TAVIS 
aod pay psa bys 
NIP IDX wR 
IN YN 
Oa ONS AN 
(in Tosaphoth) 
vey one Seow ape ows 
“DSN OX .n“S 
sod xyonox ons 
pga! 
DINWI-IN PID ND 
527082 ND 
Sen para MN 
Salen) oo 
mo dya.sanaN22 0.2/3 
abnaqwa mon q232a .n’a3 
Repophek grea 
OUND 37 ADIs .N7I3 
wiepa ma oS$ama  .n’s 
Ninqaa-nanSya 
oroe Soa ma ox’na 
mova moon. w/z 
(in Tosaphoth) 
nodaAn. .D/Aa 
mA nD. pA 


yoaqon m2 nna 
wIpon m3 .ppAa 
onawa yg 
ovnSys andy. ona 
spy bw dina pena 
pipp baa. ’D3 


ys 
STN IN DN OTN 
WEN ON MID ON 
BN nen 
xoowa nies oN 
1 ox xdx 
(793) 13 PX AYIA RDN 
NON MYIw 
MD ON 
Mary 32 arpdsy 
DONT NDN 
NWNIN OWN 
naa 
OT ODN DT ON 
odyn nim 
192° TN 
ON) IN 
SON) InN 
ndiyn nie 
wp Sais 
nrNN 
DYNAN .DYn DN 
Trane 
7D 4nN 
Sse pax 
NOON YD ON 
1D ON 
ndion nolD woe 
ND OND PR 
ssp sox 
(nb) a5 se 
On5) ad mew wxtd ox 
sons » KN 
son eon xbox 
3 DN 
‘7 1D TAN 
ohyn 5p abs 
| I °N 
209 








NN 


a“ 


a“ 


-24NR 
-D/NN 
“Ss 
NIN 
“TIN 
Aiptals 
An Fat 
oS 
pauier Per 
T'S 
“ 

dann 
“NIEN 
RI’R 
mE 
IN 
Jp < 
tle 
ITN 
eaatis 
Be NS 


INeDEN 


Nya eK 


3/’R 
“TDN 
Be 
mp iodte 
buy 

a“ 


a“ 


nbs 
sent 
px 
px 


3° 


390 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 


NYDN I 
Pq NIT 

mo m4 
s905 m5 m7 
yD m7 
sod 0 mI 
3DND D4 
xody 105 
rw 
ONT INDI 
NDYY ONT 
nipp bao 
Mvp. 
M3 NPI 
ODD II 
snaz dy 

pvp 55 Sys 
Sexo 

SNyI NPD NPT 
mn ps ANN 24 
37 n4 


wt 


NYON TT 
mvayl x24 

N17 2 eytpA 
IPDY NDI NINA 
SoVIUNT 

(in Rashi) })°973 935 
mdi mon 
wIIIN 

Noha iaata et bate ohn 
2n27 Nn NAN 

YD mA 

mresn 

m3 In 

NDYO ONT 

ayo man 

nbn 

syd aS min 
syp nwod nada 
yp min 519 9n 


SOR AST AD TT 


sot “¥9 m7 


Sat 
a 
as 
bubs 


oelah 


bela 


pint 
3257 

Nays) 
Sah ae | 


497 


"D7 
aa 
ay oh 
D4 
hit 
BOT 
NDT 
WOT 
nis 
vn 


7x53 

NSD XII 
YD 7D. 
MN ND NII 
mI Nw. 
NDT XN DI 
man Oya 

(in Tosaph.) Dwr ntya3 
mn ody 

NAD Dy3 

mp Syn 

MOINS MD NN 


nnd 


Dat 

Ay ich | 
He poy 
hen 
aa abel 
myo 
shiv 
Ppa a 
ee) 
S53 


DANI IDI vshD) D557 Saeees 


NOP NII 
NOW NI 

DDN NOW MI 
“J Dw2 


® 
oa 


(in Rashi) S7NN XDOW3 

ph) sta 

MW IT TW) 

mt Oo 

MY AW 

(in Marginal pw 7 D3 
Notes) 

pon md: 

NDW NOW) 

{3 O) 

NWA 

Ov) 23 

may nda yp 

DMDy5D ‘3 

MD .O7) 


MC? TIN 


et 


TIPS DER 
WEN ONT 


ey a 
wa 
NWA 
ws 


Na 
Geo 
oe 
we 
Bra dd 


a“ 


ame 

Aha Ss 
Pe I 
ap 
Pt: 
rg 
ES 

i 
we) 


RT 
NRT 


NSoxet 9455 

on won 8S ot nbs 
aod eyon ot .SO/ngs 
som ndat wn’ nba3 


Satatota tate 


(in Marginal Notes) 


si) aad 


KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 


sob er sy 
wp por Syd yn 
WY PD 
(in Tosaphoth) Awp My 
(in Tosaphoth) jy Fy) 


Noy 
pand Spy 
(in Marginal }9pD) OW) 
Notes) 
4] 


SON AT AN TT 
SPN Antony mt 
mom 

mn nt 

pw an at 

monad (psDt) wt 
yw ar 

pops Now pond por 
mI) wt 

sroy nr nr Sy ar 
3D WNW At 


a 


[ON Nn 
synon din 

ovr on 

yosd ayn 

syn Sw abin 

mpi pt aN 
DDN DYDIN 

nvnd $n 

yasd yin 

DAD DIN 

snp YM) AION “NON 
pt sn 


op) nw won 
syn dyin 
2) 


(OND TYwWN) aX. ‘Y 
ov dyau 


yyy 
4 
ew) 
Spekty 
esl 
. bay Dr) 
uy 
Ww 


eT 
TONY 
gral: 
aual: 
it 
buy 

a 
wr 
ab hata) 
yt 
er 


wn 
n'n 
AE 
54 
"WIN 
bn 
wan 
bn 

u 


Bale a 
p“aon 
3’n 
“Yen 

- Prawn 
Yn 


Fon hid wo 
alah my) 


yoy wand xeyion 
xn 

9) °Dn 

1) NOM 

bsyb anon 

ndynd spson 

S509 990 

NISNDD 3 D7 


xan bya 


mn pda 

SID DA WIND Dn 
omy) man 

NOpN wp 

"OND Dn 

xin 3 wripa 
sw. Tn 
sop WIDy 20 
“yan own 


at 


NDS ON 

NON MPD) 

[ONN ON) 

310 

oon now 

bp xyom py 
(in Commentaries) 

ys NIM 

2 PIT NM 

95919 3771 

orn DDIM) 

aod wy 

pyran wy 

11 

NON 

siody 1595) 

“ONT IND) 

97 DWH) 

330) 

anDv nn) 

myn 


391 


on SON 


sya 


4“ 


Mon 
f] 


4 


OT 


UT] 


liken 


an‘ yn 


TY 
Bin 
"BN 
pn 
Ot 
wap 
ea) 
“yan 
wr 


NN) 
eNoN) 
0 RS) 
a) 
mi) 
pvt) 


Eiiai) 
oy aha 
10" 3i7) 

w/in 

bay 

Ban 

<heh 

“n“3) 
yah) 

fg fhm 

mp 
jetta) 
wd 

Ah 


92 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 


(o5° 19') 3° an5 

ID NYYD 

19 19-40 55 

nia 55 

3n3 43 

ppp 55 

ANYD JD pow 1D 
1) nw DD 

MONT INDI 
(nON2Y) TN 1193 
AND 

xpdy wy5 

5p 85 wcdy “dys 
owe mp orda 
nvnd Fy yD 

sinw 53 «pw 55 

— on3 


ey, 


sone gwd 
‘DAN 
ody omst yn xd 
xpdy “dios 
roy 55 N5 
m5 m5 95 and 
soya xb 
sox xd 
xan boys 
aroy yw 
Gays 
sad pny 
9955 Nb 
myst map res 
(in Commentaries ) 
wpd 
sw xb 
TD wp NS 
(ow) sow x5 
mow xd 
yin ped 
pow owd 
sawyn x5 


ws 
saad 
alse) 


4“ 
uu 
jae 
“4 


Oy 


ah ahs 
wr 
bM95 
is 


B'DYD 


fats) 
bys 
wd 
p> 


Aan nNow 
say indie a 


(in Marg. Notes) 


WD NOVO 
ADD myo 
| 


DMN wy 
(73) 19 w 
pov w 
nan 
pw 4) 


om537 OV 


wan 
pa} ov | 


D323" 
seh ye and we 
DAD y 
ppp 
py my 
yin 
3) 9" 
Dy Ney 
wor m>3an 1) WII yy 
panda psa 
pow 
ww TaN 

a 


ans 59 .oN%D 
tnx ans 55 
Wynd 

IDI FD 

NOM NMD 
San wn 
advan nos 
bi3 

word .nr 55 
orn onde 


IG 
YO 


e 


nly 


mh oo} 


° 


ws 
ere 
eh) 


ns 


wy 


4 
yt 


pe ny 8. 
ny 
sppda yya om am 


mre 
ws 
ia fg © 
Pee 
jb 
19!" 
Reith) 


ee 
ST 
yy 
"'y) 


eds 
hat) 


mp" 


A alin), 


Areal 


reat at 


1) Name of Joseph Karo’s Commentary on the code of Maimonides, 


KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 


py ini 

om now 

1) DY *prD9 

by ano -ndyndspey 
SANs 

mI) NPD) 

ody pro 

DY NWI Naw 9 


Dd 


MIAN NND 

DYINN DED 

snyt xpop 

NON JnyT Npdp 

nnn 37 AND 

MIAN 

1D 

m5 v2 

(in S43 myn TAD 
Marginal Notes) *) 

MW) pad 

NDDD PED -AID FID 

AYO 

DIB ANID 

NIND PID No 

NOP Pr Ao 

MN NBD 

mini povan oS 


7) 
WyOY yy 
odds nti 
is Ny 
mp2) no ans by 
“apy 
ay by 
so by 
pidwn voy -yaxm oy 


Non aby | 


Pa) 

mwD 
ION 
spd NIN OND 
ov yan 
DNDTIND ONT IND 
DAD NII 
37 Dw On 
wa nt 
95) 9 NID 
2D AND 
mown vaedp 
mn yd 
avai) 
sn) pd 
nd) ND 
(in Marginal 7; pny 

notes) 
yoxd ayinn 
NOVY OND 
73D 4 
nwy myn 
nyd nyo 
Op IY 
on nD 
maa wat 
own by ya AwD 
INDY AD .NIW OND 
Naw wy ww WY 
37 DWY 
, nw 
(MpDINA) AMY M7 
manny 
inn 

od 


NIMINN XDI 
VSI 
non 43 


393 


Sha) 
ND 
ORD 
YAY 
oT'1D 
DID 
e meas, 
edi 


O79 


bY 


wD 


Anh tele’ 
DD 
0! ND 


‘4 


inl | 


ond 
wD 
Di" 
Biase) 
by 
pi’ 
ana 


4 


Tales lA) 


Set a 
dd 

wD 

wo 


mec 


n'y 
OND 


WD 
palin 
ms 


1) Name of annotations to Alfasi’s ‘Talmudical compendium by 
R. Joseph b. Chabiba, often referred to in Tosapboth Yomtov (Heller). 
2) Name of the rabbinical code by R. Moses of Coucy. It is di- 
vided into wy commendatory, and mind prohibitory laws. 


394 KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD. 


7 
pwn ya apy 
mwa Ty 
maw mwnr oy 
mend qr said Joy 
Vy Py 
+P 
TNA ANP 
spim 5p 


S xomp 

rand bp 

Syown xp 

snyt xpdop xp 

Vy Pry nyp 

DIP wip 

(in Tosaph.) Awp nyp 
ow map 


am 


maka), opal! 

arydye 49 ards 235 
mary pa aydsx 25 
(7 m799073(9) 1339 
sonoa2q2n 

obiy Sy yoa5 
Srobia yas 

NOT ID wn we 
wren mw 

oan nw 

vIn WNT 

ANI RYN 
NIon 

(mppina) Ss39n 1999 

NIN ID NN 

NAD 9 

porn 9 aaa 

DITS) caine al 


agen 
Gage 


YIN 


cle 


1 0 
en 


baal 
Tate 
wea 
eelaenial 
oT lean 


Uy 


ad 


‘4 


SIM 


fasts) 
Aen 


a“ 


arn phy 

mar may .nr by 
myyn vary 

sy fu by 

Go apyy ry 

my ov Ty 

791) w* Tip 

3 by 3NxD oy 
snns by 

‘ID Ty 

yay py 
midway o355 ty 
ww IND Ty 
pve 55 by 

Syd my 

nod oY 

ayy yy ay Tay 
ods nay say 
oenpa ‘ajy a by 
mown WN Day 
win ex ay 
oy my nay aay 
yoinn ‘any 


>) 
MWD .prAp 
2S PID NON DY 
2 pap .NINA PAD 
(in To- DMNA WIND 


‘5 
wN/5 
05 
eiteee) 


saphot referring to Rashi) 


wd 
DID 
mm pob 
NDP PID - 
Ssoon 3909 wD 
(in Tosaphoth) 


OM WAND 
(in Tosaphoth) 


aa) 
‘DB 
“WDD 
pd 
p“7B 
A een) 


nb 


1) En Jacob to which sometimes references are made in the 
marginal notes to the Talmud is the name of a collection of all Agadic 
passages of the Talmud. See above p. 76. 


2) Frequently occurring in Tosaphoth Yom Tob (Heller) and 


referring to the Mishna Commentary by R. Obadja Bertinoro. 


KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS IN THE TALMUD, 


sadn =p ID AwY 
oay yanw 
yy ymw 
Dyn ms Wy now 
WYN JIN Woy jmow 
ay my qa inte 
bEwD win qry indy 
way 
my my 
sas by 
sob unyaw 
Sow Wow .oow oy 
syanw DY 
nban pow 

4 
JUN NIN 
pidone pwn 
aN. nywn 
ondn nvnn 
7777 nen 
[wy aon 
med 
NINN .ODN WSN 
‘nya oan 
ow. mpown 
ao OY NDOIN 
pond avn 
sa mbyn 
3253 7 
p’ain> O'Nta2 TN 
ap TON 
997 DI NIN 
Nop Non 
72D NOP Nin 
3°y noyn 
‘satin 
naw oynn .yow xn 
na spar ain 
wn adn 


Dy 
Seite 

a“ 
US We 
AN pw 
sy yy 
on yy 
“bw 
by 
ie, 
Ap tena 
ww 

4d 


ny 


wn 
4 
ea) an) 
mn 
| 
Saat 
ON 
slant 
Lg 
“4 
SUAS a) 
am oa 
44 
TON 
Bl goht 
iat 
Sein 
eral 
Any ha) 
VN 
An Wa 
Yen 
BUyaen 
eh) aaa 


NOPD PAY 

0D ya port 9 

son 

vps wy 

vND 49 

fond 37 Ind 9 

Napy 9 

DID WYT.NDD 9 

nyo 9 

TIYSN JI NyNw 9 

DATA jy Nwow 1397 
(mpDINI) 

ANY TD Ny 4 
Ssedio3 1a py 9 
aoa Seow 9 
(mpoina) 

sony? ndy 1935 

Mn wen 
(nipp1n3) ,On 1939 


a4 


AWE ONY 
IPR 
mwyD 1D PRY 
1 wd ony 
Sy RY 
np syay 
DOI ADaY “OT TAY 
mony yom 
own ey 
mown moxw 
nvad nw 
ane 
ww 
mon pow 
yw Day 
pipn bonw 
aoe | 


—_—_—» eo 2s © o> —__— 


395 


Hb 
Sua 
Jia 
bs 
eat 
a's 
sae) 

A >)eha| 
wits 
Sytee te) 


M4 


Pain tata 
lelCal 
0/34 


Paes am) 
m4 
m4 


NY 
Ny 
Db INw 
Sew 
SUN 
yay 
oy 
aw 
way 
nw 
alii 
new 
Racy 


44 














BM503 .5.M63 1925 
Introduction to the Talmud; historical 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Library 


1 1012 00010 1479 





